1. Introduction
The reason why popular scientific books are very successful is probably that an overview of the topics of modern science and an understanding of the main ideas are of interest to most people. But scientific literature does not only use a style too complicated for the “ordinary”, not academically educated person. It also is too extensive and contains many, at times confusing, details that are of no interest to a “normal” person. So for a person just trying to get the main drift of a scientific topic, it is on the one hand hard to deal with the scientific vernacular and on the other hand almost impossible to filter the information of real importance from other information that is not as important.
Popular scientific books seem to be the solution for people not academically interested in a topic. Here the authors can concentrate on the basics and foundations of knowledge, going not too much into the unnecessary detail. They are not bound to the strict structures of scientific literature, but can explain simply with examples from real life.
But more important is the fact that most people in our society want to be entertained rather than taught and find the academic side of science simply boring. The colloquial style of writing in popular scientific literature, the colourful examples that draw relations to the readers’ own life and the sometimes humorous descriptions add to the pleasure of the audience and render this kind of literature not only informative but in the first place entertaining.
Though it may be true that most people read popular scientific books only for entertainment, it is also true that with this literature the ideas and discoveries of modern sciences become more transparent not only for a small academically educated group but for everybody who is interested in it. Of course they can only “scratch the surface” of the actual scientific knowledge. In order to have a greater understanding of the science in question popular scientific literature cannot replace scientific literature.
Popular scientific books are published with topics of many different sciences from all fields. Deborah Tannen is one of the most successful authors of popular scientific books in linguistics. She is professor of linguistics at Georgetown University in Washington D.C. and wrote numerous books, including the bestsellers That’s Not What I Meant (1986) and You Just Don’t Understand (1990) .(1)
[...]
______
(1) cf. Tannen, Deborah (1986) That’s Not[...]
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
2. DEBORAH TANNEN’S THAT’S NOT WHAT I MEANT IN THE FOCUS OF CRITICISM
2.1 DEBORAH TANNEN, THAT’S NOT WHAT I MEANT
2.1.1 General information on That’s Not What I Meant
2.1.2 Content of That’s Not What I Meant
2.2 CRITICS OF DEBORAH TANNEN’S POPULAR BOOKS
2.2.1 Troemel-Ploetz, Selling the Apolitical
2.2.2 Freed, We understand perfectly: A critique of Tannen’s view of cross-sex communication
2.3 CRITICS OF THAT’S NOT WHAT I MEANT
3. CONCLUSION
4. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines Deborah Tannen's popular scientific work "That’s Not What I Meant" within the context of academic and critical reception. It explores how Tannen bridges linguistic theory with popular literature and evaluates whether the intense criticisms directed at her later work are applicable to this earlier publication.
- Analysis of popular scientific literature as a genre
- Examination of core concepts in "That’s Not What I Meant" (conversational style, indirectness, metamessages)
- Review of key critical perspectives by Troemel-Ploetz and Freed
- Evaluation of the tension between academic integrity and popular accessibility
Excerpt from the Book
2.1.2 Content of That’s Not What I Meant
In That’s Not What I Meant Deborah Tannen describes every sort of communication as cross-cultural and thus as a constant seed of miscommunication.
The way we speak derives from our personal background, which differs depending on geographical, ethnic, religious, social or gender issues. Consequently, according to Tannen every person uses a different conversational style. Most people are not aware of this because “our ways of communicating seem evidently natural to us” (Tannen 1986:10). Arguments and other awkward situations in communication can arise from unexpected collisions of conversational styles and are in fact only miscommunications.
Tannen also emphasises that conversational style is not only established by what we say, but by how we say it, not by the message, but by the metamessage. “Information conveyed by the meaning of words is the message”, but what is more important in communication is the metamessage, which reflects “our attitudes towards each other, the occasion and what we are saying” (Tannen 1986:16).
The content of the metamessage depends on conversational signals and conversational devices. Conversational signals are for example pacing and pausing; loudness; pitch and intonation. A combination of these signals make up conversational devices, such as expressive reactions, asking questions, complaining and apologising (cf. Tannen 1986:33). According to Tannen these devices are invisible, because they are natural parts of our way of speaking. That is why the perception of a metamessage only relies on assumptions, which often lead to wrong conclusions about the intentions of the speaker. So, if the conversational signals and devices are not shared by the speakers, these different styles can become reason for miscommunication (cf. Tannen 1986:50).
Summary of Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION: Discusses the success and function of popular scientific literature as a simplified, entertaining bridge between academic research and the general public.
2. DEBORAH TANNEN’S THAT’S NOT WHAT I MEANT IN THE FOCUS OF CRITICISM: Provides an overview of the book's content, core linguistic concepts like indirectness and metamessages, and details the severe academic criticism regarding Tannen's political stance and methodology.
3. CONCLUSION: Argues that Tannen's work should be evaluated based on its intent as popular literature rather than strictly as academic scientific output.
4. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lists the cited sources, including primary works by Tannen and critical essays by Troemel-Ploetz, Freed, and Coates.
Keywords
Deborah Tannen, That’s Not What I Meant, popular science, linguistics, conversational style, miscommunication, metamessage, indirectness, cross-cultural communication, sociolinguistics, gender communication, critical reception, academic criticism, Senta Troemel-Ploetz, Alice F. Freed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
This paper focuses on the critical reception of Deborah Tannen's popular scientific book "That’s Not What I Meant", exploring the discrepancy between its public success and the academic criticism leveled at her later work.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The paper covers the genre of popular scientific literature, sociolinguistic concepts of conversation (specifically conversational styles and indirectness), and the political critique of Tannen's work regarding feminism and gender representation.
What is the main research question?
The research explores whether the intense academic criticisms directed at Tannen's other works, particularly "You Just Don’t Understand", are valid when applied to her earlier book, "That’s Not What I Meant".
Which methodology is applied?
The paper uses a qualitative analysis approach, examining the book's core concepts and comparing them against external critical reviews provided by linguists like Troemel-Ploetz and Freed.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body details Tannen's linguistic theories—such as involvement, independence, and metamessages—and contrasts these with critiques that accuse Tannen of being apolitical and overgeneralizing gender dynamics.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Deborah Tannen, popular science, conversational style, miscommunication, sociolinguistics, and critical reception.
How does Tannen define the term "metamessage"?
Tannen defines the metamessage as information that reflects the speakers' attitudes towards each other and the occasion, which is often more important in communication than the literal meaning of the words used.
What is the author's final conclusion regarding the criticism of Tannen?
The author concludes that while the criticism of Tannen's scientific rigor may contain some truth, it is ultimately inappropriate to judge popular scientific literature by the same standards as academic texts, given their different goals and target audiences.
- Quote paper
- Andrea Dorweiler (Author), 2004, Deborah Tannen's popular scientific book "That's Not What I Meant" in the focus of criticism, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/40416
