http://www.juventudrebelde.cu/suplementos/el-tintero/2013-05-04/la-manera-delirante-en-que-hablamos/

The delirious way in which we talk

What we consider dialogue was left behind in that imaginary ring where communication takes place. We waste what we want to say because of the way we say it. Let us hope that in time –not only with time!- we will be able to communicate.

Reynaldo González 
digital@juventudrebelde.cu
May 4,  2013 19:54:47 CDT

·     

Sometimes I wonder if we Cubans speak correctly, if we are really communicative –not “communicators” because that is a professional matter of those who can do it- and if our ideas are understood. I am concerned about the present popular language of the majority of Cubans and, frankly, I find it sloppy without concern for the accuracy of what is said, excessively full of incomplete ideas and words whose meanings do not really correspond to what is meant, too dependent on gestures to the extent that conversation may seem a pantomime; all these without considering pronunciation, because it would send us straight to the clinic of the diction specialist. I will take three issues: what we say, how we say it, and the way in which we say it.

If I focus on the writing – and speech- in fashion, I should include here a praise of Cuban popular speech, how much we have progressed, achievements, conquers and many etceteras. Something like striking rocks to get sparks when what we mean is matches. And explain –covering my back-that the following remarks refer to those of us who deserve them, excluding the respectable and massive rest of the population. These are habits of speech –and writing- that rarify conversation, make it longer, and turn everything into “dissertations” (as disliked as that is). I should make my point:

We don’t always understand what we say to each other, maybe because it is uttered as a rebuff. For this we can blame shyness, a condition that imposes an inexplicable hurry to the speaker. But, are there so many shy persons? To this speed we add bad pronunciation, mistakes in sound articulation like flying over vowels and consonants to end quickly as if we had to rush to an imaginary appointment. Thus the listener rarely gets something and we waste what we say.

The gestures on which we deposit most of our communication, is not really an ally but an opponent (and we love them so). They involve face and hands –in some speakers also arms and shoulders and waist. It would seem that gestures substitute words because we give them content amplification value. Since each speaker has its own system of gestures without a prescriptive “spelling” these are not completely explicit. Gestures substitute words and phrases; they steal their meaning and leave behind a somewhat betrayed communication. This is the risk of how we say it.

In the environment, because dialogue requires a context, the matter of –in my view precarious- communication gets more complicated. Together with our excessive gestures is the problem of tone. Our speech has become expansive with too many decibels. High sounding voice is almost a shout –covert or explicit- an imposition. If the interlocutor does the same, the dialogue becomes a dispute. In a dispute there is no dialogue, none of the “contenders” persuades the other of its arguments. This is hitting and hitting back; avoiding the opponent jab until finding a weak side and striking him there. To a voice that aims at predominating we add the gestures –increasingly marked, overwhelming. Haven’t you heard a word that is now in fashion: acaballar? [from: riding a horse].We don’t talk, we nos acaballamos [ride on each other]. We do not coincide or persuade each other. What we consider dialogue was left behind in that imaginary ring where communication takes place. We waste what we want to say because of the way in which we say it.

I heard a “popular” way to describe a fist fight: «Oye, el tipo llegó, le dijo lo que le dijo, le bajó lo que le bajó, le puso lo que le puso y lo dejó como lo dejó». [“Listen, the guy got there, told him what he had to tell, downed him what he had to down, and left him as he did”]. This deserves a reply: “What I liked best is how you explained it.”

Are we already resigned to the theft of “the word”, that is, to the acaballante version for taking part in conversations? This is something we suffer even in allegedly educated milieus. When this is done by a woman doctor, for example, we feel like telling her in popular language: «No seas tan imperfecta, chica». [“Dont’ be so imperfect, pal”]. Who can tell whether two persons talking like that understand each other, or think? And if this happens in a group? More than a conversation it would be a rap jam. And if we need to learn a glossary of implicits to make sense of the issue? And if they are telling us a story and in the most interesting moment they cut the ending with the classic: que pa’qué [and go figure]?

Let us hope that in time –not only with time!- we will be able to communicate. We would be taking care of what we say, how we say it, and the way in which we say it.

*Narrador y ensayista. Miembro de la Academia Cubana de  la Lengua.