The way people copy each other's linguistic style reveals their pecking order

I found the following somewhat funny given that this article discusses pecking orders and linguistic choices:

This was submitted 2 weeks ago [1], with the title "Computer Scientists Create Algorithm That Measures Human Pecking Order", which is appended to the main title for the article. (reached 48 points)

pg has resubmitted this 2 weeks later, using the subtitle of the article, "The way people copy each other's linguistic style reveals their pecking order." (so far 96 points)

Now I'm not nitpicking about credit, I don't care. My question is to what degree is this submission getting more traction from pg's status, and to what degree is it getting more traction due to the linguistic choice of a more specific, better(?) title?

I'd say pg, at least here on HN, is higher up in the pecking order than the person who submitted the article first (llambda).

On the other hand, the subtitle is certainly more descriptive, since computer scientists have been making algorithms to measure human pecking orders for a while, with large companies seeking to build brand confidence by giving away their products to "influential individuals", etc.

This is different than the effect described in the article. The original article contrasts their new work with previous approaches that focus on structural/network effects: who's talking to whom, etc.

I guess what spiked my interest is that your power and/or reputation still affect the linguistic choice of whether to respond at all.

[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3385517

When I talk to people who have language problems (I was a TA at a US university, so I meet a diverse set of language skill levels in my students), I notice that I sometimes copy the amount of broken-ness in their language (involuntarily). This is not in a condescending way, because I can sense they become comfortable at once. To understand this in a different way, try to imagine one person speaking broken English and the other person just completely keeping up his fast fluent pace in all his replies. That would seem pretty rude.

What I wanted to get at is this, pecking order might not be the only reason to copy verbal styles. Empathy might be one more reason. Does this study control for this?

It would be fascinating to analyze this in verbal communication. I've thought about this in the past, specifically in how idiomatic expressions, "inside jokes" and the like are disseminated through social groups. It always seems that certain individuals in a group are responsible for setting the tone and style of humor and colloquial expression, while the rest end up mimicing the leaders.

In a more practical sense, simply being able to recognize these signals would be very valuable in meetings, especially sales meetings involving pitching a group when it is unclear who the actual decision makers are.

James Pennebaker wrote about this in "The Secret Life of Pronouns". It was a good book released late last year.

He also does twitter stream analysis using his research and you can find that here --> http://analyzewords.com

People might dismiss it as tripe, but after you've read some of his assertions and look over your own emails you'll probably believe it makes a bit of sense.

Direct link to the paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.3670v1

It's interesting that linguistic co-ordination is being used to determine "pecking order". Maybe so, but I observe things a bit differently.

I grew up in a part of the country that was mostly rural, toward the midwest/southeast part of the US. I was raised believing that "y'all" was a label for referencing a group of people.

I no longer live in this part of the country, but return from time to time for family. Re-connecting with family and friends, my wife will notice that I start to sound like everyone with whom we're surrounded (she kindly refers to this as my "inner hick".)

If this is true (I assume it is), it is completely sub-conscious. If there is anything I'm consciously doing, it is attempting to bridge any perceived gap in communication.

In terms of pecking order, it may be the case that I'm conforming to my surroundings. I tend to think of it more as "when in Rome".

I don't care for the value judgment implied by the term "pecking order", as it denotes that someone is in control or holds more influence. Communication carries an underlying intent, a reason for the communication to occur in the first place. Linguistic analysis can measure syntax and output, but it doesn't measure intent. And intent is important to understanding the value of communication.

When the Google guys came up with PageRank, the assumption was that the intent of including a link was to point to a more credible source. As we now know, assuming the intent of a website to link to another as a means of assessing credibility is flawed.

Very interesting. At first blush (based on the title and first bit of the article) I wanted to offer an alternative explanation, something like:

1. People make sense of things through language. (You can get this sentiment in sound-bite form from any number of linguists or language philosophers, e.g. Wittgenstein's "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.")

2. People with more linguistic resources are better able to make sense of things, and thus tend to rise to the top of the pecking order. (N.B.: Language is more than just words, so this isn't simply an issue of vocabulary.)

3. People with fewer linguistic resources are drawn to the expressions of people with more linguistic resources because those expressions give them new ways to make sense of things. They're like design patterns for thought.

4. Thus, what's being measured isn't power or influence, at least not directly.

But of course none of this is relevant to the article, which draws its conclusions from the degree of periphrasis in a discussion, rather than the substance of what is said. So, again, very interesting.

It's interesting, I would have thought something different. I'd have thought that people who are more capable of adapting to the communication style of their peers had a subtle advantage (though that may not reveal pecking order).

I've always thought of a person that can hold a high level, technical conversation one moment, then adjust their vocabulary and speaking style to communicate with some neighborhood children the next, then adopt a pidgin to communicate better when dealing with a non-native speaking friend, then switch to a local drawl when getting their car fixed by the local mechanic, to have a special sort of power w/r to communicating effectively with their audience.

People who don't seem capable of adjusting their patterns based on audience seem more..."brittle" somehow.

I still think this is the major effect that makes it harder for adults to learn a foreign language. Brain chemistry changes a little between child and adult but your resistance to social inferiority signals changes a lot.

If you can reach a zen state of submission to the ocean of expression around you and follow the currents, you could learn like a child again. That's dang hard to do.

While it is always nice to have harder proof than is usual in the humanities and to a lesser degree social sciences, I feel mildly irritated by the coverage which presents this as a "discovery" by clever tech people. These facts are pretty basic in sociolinguistics, the study of discourse, psychology of language etc., as amply acknowledged in the paper itself.

And linguistic style reflects how a person thinks (so the theory goes). So when you mimic someone's linguistic style, you may find yourself succumbing to their way of thinking.

The theory continues that different programming languages reflect different linguistic styles and thus your choice of programming language can affect the way you think.

As an example, I do a large amount of text processing work using sed. Interestingly (imo), sed is a language designed by someone who had a degree in Psychology.

As a result, to some extent my way of thinking would probably differ from someone who uses, e.g., Perl as their preferred language for processing text.

I've actually observed this many times, having lived for quite some time in America and now quite some time in India - not just with linguistic style but also with accent (when the people talking to each other cross geographic boundaries).

So over the years, I've internally made a (somewhat silly) point to be aware of this and not try and change the way I speak based on whom I'm speaking too.

I'd be curious to know how much of this applies to non-native English speakers. I guess their native language can shape the way they build sentences and influence the way they communicate in different way. Or, maybe, they just attempt to correlate more with native English speakers.

What kind of status are we talking here? Social standing? Authority role? Charisma? Persuasion?

ah, that explains why both my manager, his manager and the team's group manager keep making the "... is is that" mistake. I'm a poor ESL guy, and my grammar parsing brain paths get fizzed whenever I hear them speak like that.

Quite noticeable in politics. The mannerisms and speaking style of political leaders are quickly picked up by their followers.

When Kevin Rudd was the Australian Prime Minister, every Labor MP sprinkled their conversations with "can I just say" and asked themselves questions.

Now it's Julia Gillard and we're being treated to being spoken to like a class of special-needs 5 year olds.

Quick question: does anyone know whether it's only true for English?

Can someone please explain the chart?