S3E5 Wieso hört man mit vier Ohren besser?

It is possible that his partner in the sentence "Es ist grün" does not belong to the colour of the ampoule, but rather that he wants to be coochied by the work of the Eilikat and Gefälligstrascht. My name is Verena and I am a language scientist. Every two weeks I look for answers to all these questions from science. How we talk to each other says how we stand apart. So banal is a sentence that sounds like that. In the language science there is not much time left. Long time has been discussed about the meaning of words, about the grammar of our sentences. The language is also the kit that keeps us together. That was left out. But what if language does not only bring together, but also apart? Let's imagine the following situation. A man is standing with the car on an ampoule. The woman sits at the steering wheel and the man says, "You, the ampoule is green." The woman answers, "Are you driving or am I driving?" What happened here? Why does the woman react? Would the man say something else? This example is so plausible that it does not come from the old days, but from Friedemann Schulz von Thun. Schulz von Thun is one of the most influential German communication psychologists. The task of communication psychology is to describe this and other misunderstandings scientifically. In addition, Schulz von Thun has developed the so-called 4-orn model. For him there is a communication situation, as we have just described, always from three parts. A transmitter or a transmitter, a message and a receiver or a receiver. The four oars are of course the receiver, in this case our car driver. She hears the message, "It is green", so with four different oars. On the other hand, the transmitter, our car driver, who has four oars on the other hand. So he speaks the expression with four different oars. And imagine that calmly, you do that in the literature too. In other words, it means that an expression can be interpreted on four different levels. So a lot of material for misunderstandings. For this four-okayed model, Schulz von Thun combines two other well-known psychological or theoretical models. On the one hand, it refers to the reception of the Viennese psychologist Paul Watzlerwick, who assumes that what we say in addition to the content aspect has always been a reference aspect. And on the other hand, it refers to the language theorist Karl Bühler. This already has three different functions in the 1930s. He was also one of them, that a language sign is always related to the transmitter, to the receiver and to the objects or the behavior of the subject. The sign has an expression function, an appeal function and a representation function. So we want to say something, we press first, something about ourselves, our thoughts, for example, or our feelings. We then demand, second, to do something about ourselves, like babies, who demand milk by squawking, crying or screaming. And we set third information about objects and behavior. We want others to simply and simply share something on the content aspect. And we always do the same thing at the same time. These two points of view show that language communication is connected to Schulz von Thun only in a common model with ears and with snowflakes. Each expression contains four messages. On the subject level, the transmitter transmits information. For example, about the color of the apple. On the appeal level, he communicates what he wants to achieve with the receiver. He formulates an implicit desire, an instruction in action, so that he starts, for example. On the level of self-reliance, the transmitter gives something of itself at a price. For example, that it has an ID card, because it has an important meeting. And finally, on the relationship level, it brings the expression, how he is always with the receiver. Especially this aspect is often transmitted through sound waves, mimics or gestures. So it is possible that the problem lies exactly here on the amp. Because what a transmitter puts into a message is often not what a receiver hears from their ear. Let's take a closer look at our example with the amp. On which level did our woman understand the expression of her partner? On the subject level, the man has informed his partner about the facts. So she could have understood the statement "The Amp is Green" literally. As we often say in everyday life. She could have only understood the necessary descriptions of the fact. On the appeal level, the man has a woman who wants to do something. She could have understood the statement as well as the requirement to leave. On the level of self-reliance, the man has communicated a little about himself. So it is possible that his partner in the sentence "It is Green" does not refer to the color of the amp, but to the fact that he has an ID card and wants to be coached at work dangerously. On the appeal level, the man finally has the expression of how he stands with his partner. So she could have understood that he is thinking about her and that she is forced to help her, because she has clearly seen that the amp is already Green. But it is always and everywhere that we hear all four levels. We cannot simply keep three ears to understand better with the fourth. Just as the sender communicates with each message at all four levels at the same time, the receiver also picks up each message at the same time with all four ears. Of course, the example of the amp is a little overpriced. But it means that there are disruptions and conflicts in communication. Namely, when the sender and the receiver point these different values and weights at different levels. So it is conceivable that he has put the weight on the appeal level with his "It is Green". With her answer, however, the driver shows that she is picking up his message as a premonition. In the classic case of mansplaining, one would say today, "Do you drive or do I drive?" Who is right now? Him or her? Is that not the question we always ask ourselves when we argue? When we say, "I didn't mean that at all" or "You only hear what you want to hear?" Pure, under the command of "Sachinformation" there is no communication. We cannot communicate only on the appeal level and display the other levels, neither on the sender side nor on the receiver side. Appeals, self-reliance and relationship always go with it. Sometimes stronger, sometimes less strong. How strong depends on the relationship between the communication partner inside and on a large part also on how we feel right now, what we are dealing with, how much we are at the matter, or not. In addition, every person has a different communication style. For some people, the appeal level is stronger than the relationship level or one of the other levels. Depending on how strong the appeal is, of course, different messages are interpreted. Exciting, but also exciting, this communication. You never know what you get. The many dimensions of language messages are rarely disturbed in communication. Because people usually do not only talk about fun, but rather about what they say, want to communicate with someone about something, they always talk about a social action. And action means to inform, appeal, be open and have relationships. This can be exhausting. Communication is sometimes a real power act. We have to clearly formulate, pay attention to the tone, mimic and gestic, often read the lines and know as a communication partner or partner well to prevent possible misunderstandings. So it can not harm to listen to others well and always lead to ears that talking to each other always means to live with each other. And that can sometimes be difficult. [music fades out]