http://www.labspaces.net/106770/What_mim...lationship

People match each other's language styles more during happier periods of their relationship than at other times, according to new research from psychologists at The University of Texas at Austin.

"When two people start a conversation, they usually begin talking alike within a matter of seconds," says James Pennebaker, psychology professor and co-author of the study. "This also happens when people read a book or watch a movie. As soon as the credits roll, they find themselves talking like the author or the central characters."

This tendency is called language style matching or LSM. It is the focus of Pennebaker's and co-author Molly E. Ireland's study published in the September issue of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

"Because style matching is automatic," says Ireland, a psychology graduate student, "it serves as an unobtrusive window into people's close relationships with others."

Original LSM publication(s): http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/...sentations

While I am what I call a mimic (I tend to copy people's accent and mannerisms) I don't know many other people who do this. So I have a hard time believing that people do it 'in seconds'.

In fact, I've noticed most people don't even match politeness levels when talking with strangers. (In English, I mean.)

So to say they start 'in seconds' doesn't make sense. Until the people have a history with each other, they have nothing to go on. And once they do, the change isn't 'within seconds' it's 'before they even start talking'. They already know how they're going to talk to the other person and the kinds of phrases they are going to use.

I also don't think it's as automatic as he suggests, either. Most people choose to act like their friends so they fit in well and are understood well. People that don't do that, don't fit in. They never get to be part of the inner-circle.

Hey everyone, I have wccrawford on ignore when I post science articles, I can only assume that as usual, their comment reflects an instant, half-assed reading and knee-jerk, subjective response that indicates misunderstanding of the topic? I thought so.

For those interested, I've been reading the literature (via second link in the OP), I was surprised at how well-documented LSM/language synchrony is and the possibilities for purposeful language study.

Personal attacks are SO last year.

wccrawford Wrote:While I am what I call a mimic (I tend to copy people's accent and mannerisms) I don't know many other people who do this. So I have a hard time believing that people do it 'in seconds'.

In fact, I've noticed most people don't even match politeness levels when talking with strangers. (In English, I mean.)

So to say they start 'in seconds' doesn't make sense. Until the people have a history with each other, they have nothing to go on. And once they do, the change isn't 'within seconds' it's 'before they even start talking'. They already know how they're going to talk to the other person and the kinds of phrases they are going to use.

I also don't think it's as automatic as he suggests, either. Most people choose to act like their friends so they fit in well and are understood well. People that don't do that, don't fit in. They never get to be part of the inner-circle.

*disclaimer: this post is mostly regarding physical mimicry in general, and not specifically language mimicry*

"Think" doesn't enter into the equation, the neurological systems that carry out physical voluntary mimicry mimicry, and involuntary, have been extrensively researched and study. And it's far, far faster than "seconds" even, with most studies documenting that synchronization of unconscious movement occurs at an average of between 19 to 21 seconds, if I remember the numbers correctly. Neurologists often compare this speed to the Muhammad Ali's voluntary movement speeds to demonstrate the difference. 190 milliseconds to detect flashes of light, with another 40 milliseconds required for the efferent neurons to begin a punch. The brain's hardwired system puts that to shame in speed.

It's important to note, before I continue, the distinction between voluntary and involuntary mimicry. Involuntary mimicry is by far the most common form, and is considered by most cognitive neurosciences, and evolutionary psychologists, to be a cornerstone of human social interaction, due to the social binding it fosters. Since it is involuntary, many people deny mimicry in themselves; it contradicts the cultural obsession with individualism that so many societies pride themselves on.

Involuntary mimicry can be seen in the muscular activity of our faces (measured by electromyography) matching the emotional responses of the facial expressions we are presented with. Vocal intonation, length of pauses, rhythm of our speech, accent, posture, and vocal intonations have all been shown to be a part of the neurological systems for involuntary mimicry.

A wonderful and classical example of the necessity of involuntary mimicry, is Parkinson's disease, which damages the neurological pathways that control spontaneous, involuntary facial response. Any victim of Parkinson's disease can explain in great detail how their social interactions are incredibly impaired by their inability to synchronize facial expressions.

With regards to people CHOSING to act like their friends in order to fit in, research has overwhelming demonstrated that social mimicry is rarely a choice, and while the reasoning of "fitting in" explains the purpose well enough, that is conscious understanding of unconscious mimicry. Of course one can use voluntary mimicry, "Well, I want to fit in with this Kanji forum, and I hear they sacrifice a radical every eve of the Sabbath, and wear kanji clothes to appease the Kanji Gods, so I better synchronize myself with their culture to fit in..." but the interactions are mostly going to be controlled by the neural pathways for involuntary mimicry.

Of course, that isn't the entire picture. Language is an ever-evolving beast, and our lexicon and syntax are already developed when we engage in random social interactions, but that does not negate the critical role that mimicry has, but simply acts as another variable and component to language transmission.

I wanted to discuss emotional mimicry, as I personally find emotional contagions more fascinating than physical mimicry, but I think I've done enough Aijin Ranting for this morning.

What we unscientific folk like to call "hitting it off".

- So how did your date go?
- Dude, we were LSMing like crazy!

Not really sure what wccrawford is getting at... people consciously act like their friends in order to fit in? People who don't will never become part of the "inner circle"? Maybe in elementary school.

harhol Wrote:What we unscientific folk like to call "hitting it off".

- So how did your date go?
- Dude, we were LSMing like crazy!

Not really sure what wccrawford is getting at... people consciously act like their friends in order to fit in? People who don't will never become part of the "inner circle"? Maybe in elementary school.

It's quite obvious in Elementary school because kids will flat out say it. Once people grow up, they just exclude those people without saying so.

Adults don't exclude people after they become friends...

Some adult relationships are built on false pretences and exist for convenience but that's usually fairly obvious to all involved, and is a separate issue to actual friendships.

If you still feel a need to "fit in" in order to make friends then, uh, I don't know what to say.

So, nest0r, you must have had something in mind that linked this to language study/acquisition...?

I wonder how this works in L2 constraints. My guess would be that first you mimic a lot, then you finally re-acquire something like individual expression.

My personal experience is that of the four languages that I speak as non-native, I only sound like myself in two (LSM notwithstanding), and Japanese is not one of them. In Japanese I tend to try to mimic the conversation partner without noticing, probably doing so quite poorly given my so-so conversation skills.

I'm too lazy to read (apo nest0r), but this mimicry thing is relevant when using a foreign language. Maybe it only has to do with people that don't think themselves has fluent -- or maybe just because the style parameter isn't yet generated by the speaker.

Long story short, a teacher I knew went to Japan, made out with a local, and since he only knew gaijins, he hanged out a lot with his girl, perfecting his speech on the way with her. Problem is he was mimicking too much, so one day a Japanese collegue asked him if he was gay (because he talked like a girl). That's when he started seeing his girlfriend less often and started hanging out with male dudes.

The moral is "buy drinks around" I guess...

EratiK Wrote:Long story short, a teacher I knew went to Japan, made out with a local, and since he only knew gaijins, he hanged out a lot with his girl, perfecting his speech on the way with her. Problem is he was mimicking too much, so one day a Japanese collegue asked him if he was gay (because he talked like a girl). That's when he started seeing his girlfriend less often and started hanging out with male dudes.

The moral is "buy drinks around" I guess...

I used to be friends with a male who would purposefully use feminine and masculine speech interchangeably, due to his opposition to gender distinction in language.

Do your part to end gender inequality. Add 'wa' at the end of your sentences today!

Can't recall if we already discussed this:

Why the Brain Doubts a Foreign Accent

What happens in the brain when you hear an accent--and why you are less likely to trust the speaker

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...bts-accent

harhol Wrote:Not really sure what wccrawford is getting at... people consciously act like their friends in order to fit in? People who don't will never become part of the "inner circle"? Maybe in elementary school.

...and in middle school, and in high school, and in college, and in many cases, for the rest of their lives. Most people are just shallow like that (most people). The way I see it, the people who are strikingly different and can be included in such shallow groups of people (more specifically, cliques) tend to just be really, really charismatic

I get what WCCrawford was getting at.

*take that nest0r*

I trump your rebuttal by saying...

Lead every interaction and you'll never have to worry about this again. Discussion done.

*zany*