Personal Narrative Analysis

My fiancé and I normally communicate clearly to one another. We do not typically have to worry about language being that much of a barrier. On one occasion, however, our use of abstraction led to a misunderstanding that led to an argument that frustrated both of us. I was drinking red wine and was tired one night. Brett (my fiancé) told me that my eyes and teeth matched: they were both red. I became offended and thought it was rude for him to point something such as this out when I had had a long day caring for our daughter. I became quiet, as I usually do when I am angered, and sat watching television. When he asked me what was wrong, I told him that I thought what he said was rude. He said that he was joking and offered me some Visine.
I interpreted his explanation of the statement being a joke to be invalid since offering the Visine only validated that my eyes were red. We argued and eventually just went to bed without discussing the issue further.
In this situation, my misunderstanding of his joke was based on the fact that my perception of the situation was different than his. I was tired and genuinely thought he was picking on me. When using pragmatic rules to try to decide how to interpret messages in a given context, I can see now that he may have just been joking around and I was too moody to interpret it this way. When using pragmatic rules, cooperation between two communicators is vital. When conversation operates under the same set of pragmatic rules for everyone involved, it is called coordination by communications scholars.
Though it was such a simple statement, Brett considered our relationship to be one where he could make such a statement without igniting an argument. We often tease one another for one thing or another, but he did not know that I am especially insecure about the appearance of my teeth. I did not know that they were red and would have brushed them if I did. This misunderstanding stemmed from the fact that at the time, our set of pragmatic rules was not the same. While he thought the statement to be one that was a harmless joke, I found it to be an offensive statement that made me feel insecure.
This misunderstanding is one of context. While some misunderstanding lie in the semantic and syntactic problems, pragmatic rules account for quite a bit of misunderstandings between individuals. The power of suggestion is one that can change any statement. I could not understand whether he was joking in order to infer that I didn’t look very good that night, or if he wanted me to use Visine and brush my teeth. Instead, he meant it as nothing, only as a joke. This misunderstanding stemmed from the fact that we had differing interpretations of the statement.
The second part of our misunderstanding was that he offered me Visine while defending that his statement was a joke. My interpretation was that offering Visine validated the fact that his statement was fact, not inference. For me, in order for his statement to be a joke, it couldn’t be completely true. When validating that I, indeed, did have red eyes, he no longer had the right to call what he said a joke. He stated a fact to me, and I found the statement to be offensive and rude.
This second part of the misunderstanding is what a joke might be defined as between us. If I were to make a joke about him, it would be about something that was not completely true. This is why people say “just kidding” at the end of a joking statement. Our differing opinions of what a joke is, or the difference in our equivocal language, caused another misunderstanding between us. According to the text book, equivocal language consists of statement that have more than one commonly accepted definition. A joke can be defined as “a humorous anecdote or remark intended to provoke laughter.” It can also be “a triviality not to be taken seriously.” Brett meant his statement as a joke by the second definition. I thought he meant a joke by the first definition. I didn’t think his statement could have provoked laughter from me, even on a good day; thus, our misunderstanding deepened.
Brett and I ordinarily do not have misunderstandings of this kind.
Our communication style is open, often jesting, and sarcastic. He does know, however, that I do not take jokes about my physical appearance lightly. I know the same about him, and we often refrain from making jokes about one another. For example, Brett is very conscious about his hair. I once made a joke about how he practically had an afro (I was being sarcastic, his hair was just a little more puffy than normal) and he stormed out of the room to fix it. When joking about each other’s physical characteristics, we often miscommunicate either by way of relative language, equivicol language, or by differing pragmatic
rules.
Aside from veering away from jokes about our physical appearances, we often know immediately when we communicate if something we said was not taken the way it was supposed to be. From dating for over three years, we’ve gained knowledge on how to read each other’s nonverbal communication well. Our body language, facial expressions, and demeanor, often shows that something is wrong between us before we even say another thing to one another.
Usually when either of us is insulted or irritated by something, we go silent. We then usually either purse our lips or cross our arms and avoid eye contact. We both tend to do the same thing when a situation like this arises, which is why it is so easy for both of us to recognize it in the other. Nonverbal communication can be ambiguous, but in situations like this one, it is completely apparent that the other person is not happy.
Things I can do in order to prevent situations such as this is to communicate my feelings after a statement such as this is made. For example, instead of going silent and expecting Brett to read into my anger by way of my nonverbal communication, I could express that when he said that my teeth and eyes were red, I did not find it funny. Because I did not find the statement to be funny, it did not appear to me that it was a joke.
I could also use perception checking in order to avoid becoming so angry about a simple statement. For example, I could have said the following:
“When you said that my eyes and teeth were red, I felt insulted. Did you mean to insult me?”
By this statement, I disclose a fact, followed by my interpretation or feeling about it. I then follow it up with a question in order to confirm or go against my perception. If I were to integrate perception checking into my communication with Brett, I feel that our communication with one another would become much more clear and concise. There would no longer be a need to guess about what the other is feeling, or if either of us had insulted the other on accident.
Another thing I could do in order to avoid a difference in pragmatic rules is to err on the side of caution when joking around with people.
I don’t know the context of which my statement might be interpreted. Something simple like joking about a person’s car may strike a nerve and cause insecurity. I once joked that my friend’s car was just about to fall apart. She became quiet only to tell me years later that when I said that, she felt insecure and that I was trying to tell her she was poor. She couldn’t afford a better car at the time, but was ashamed of the one she had to drive. I should have thought about the context of the statement before making it. This may have prevented her from being hurt by my
joke.
By taking this course, I have learned that there are many more dimensions to communication than I first thought there to be. The fact that there is an actual study behind why there was a miscommunication between my fiancé and I just recently reassures me that it is something that happens daily amongst many people. Knowing now that despite having a relationship that allows for jokes, teasing, and sarcasm, the pragmatic rules that govern our conversation may be different at times. Our language may still suffer from equivocation differences as well as relative language barriers. The knowledge of the fundamentals of interpersonal communication in itself helps me decide how I will assess future misunderstandings between my family, my friends, and me.