In my preaching class, one of the main points that is emphasized over and over again: to identify with the audience. Whether that is through a funny anecdote, a clever one-liner, or a practical application, we are taught that our point will be clearer and our message received with open ears if we can effectively identify with our audience. A simple yet effective way to endear oneself to an audience, be that a crowd of several hundred or just one other person, is to use what is known as “we language.” Simply put, “we language” is inclusive language that connects the speaker to someone else.
To highlight the power of “we language,” the lack of this type of language must be examined. “You language” or “I language” contrast with the “we language.” “I language” separates the speaker from the group (or dyad). “I want this.” “I need that.” “I think such and such.” Instead of being on the same level as the audience, using “I language” puts the speaker on a different level (often to the detriment of the message being communicated). “You language” has a similar effect. It makes a distinction between the speaker and the audience. This barrier can often lead to an audience that is far less receptive than they otherwise would be. In contrast to “you” or “I” language is “we language,” which is much more inclusive.
To highlight the power of “we language,” the lack of this type of language must be examined. “You language” or “I language” contrast with the “we language.” “I language” separates the speaker from the group (or dyad). “I want this.” “I need that.” “I think such and such.” Instead of being on the same level as the audience, using “I language” puts the speaker on a different level (often to the detriment of the message being communicated). “You language” has a similar effect. It makes a distinction between the speaker and the audience. This barrier can often lead to an audience that is far less receptive than they otherwise would be. In contrast to “you” or “I” language is “we language,” which is much more inclusive.
I have used this principle mainly in two places in my life: my role as a communicator and my role as a husband. As a new preacher, I try my best to put myself at the same level as the congregation to which I speak. When I get to the application portion of the sermon, I will often use "we language," for this communicates that I am also struggling to overcome the exact same issues that I am encouraging the congregation to overcome. This kind of language allows me to "bolster feelings of connection and similarity" with the hearers (McCornack 195). If I use too much "I language," people would assume I was self-absorbed, and they would completely tune out what I have to say. If I use too much "you language," then people assume that I am attacking them personally, which also causes them to tune out my message. Having a good balance of "you," "I," and "we" language" is key to allowing the audience to empathize with me and my point. |
In a similar way, I use this kind of "we language" in my marriage. Studies show that couples that use this kind of language are more effectively able to resolve conflict than those that don't (Anwar). The idea of being part of a team allows couples to look beyond their personal needs to the needs of their partner. Those that view themselves as part of something greater (marriage) are more likely to compromise; therefore, they are more likely to stick through the difficult times that marriages inevitably have. This is especially true of couples that remain together for longer periods of time. In order to maintain my marriage, I try to do the "big" things (such as compromise) as well as the more subtle things (such as use inclusive "we" language). Though minor, I have found that it is often these small things (in preaching and in maintaining a marriage) that can make all the difference.
Anwar, Y. (2010, January 29). 'We' factor: The language of love - Futurity. Retrieved March 28, 2015, from http://www.futurity.org/we-factor-the-language-of-love/
McCornack, S. (2013). Relationships with Romantic Partners. In Reflect & Relate: An Introduction to Personal Communication (3rd ed., pp. 195). Boston: Bedford/ St. Martins.
http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/iStock_000003059336XSmall.jpg
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Money/Pix/pictures/2013/5/7/1367924479441/An-older-couple-holding-h-008.jpg
http://thehairspecialist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/young-couple.jpg
McCornack, S. (2013). Relationships with Romantic Partners. In Reflect & Relate: An Introduction to Personal Communication (3rd ed., pp. 195). Boston: Bedford/ St. Martins.
http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/iStock_000003059336XSmall.jpg
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Money/Pix/pictures/2013/5/7/1367924479441/An-older-couple-holding-h-008.jpg
http://thehairspecialist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/young-couple.jpg