In meetings where important decisions get made, what items receive more attention may influence the outcome. We examine how different types of rhetorical (de-)emphasis -- including hedges, superlatives, and contrastive conjunctions -- correlate with what gets revisited later, controlling for item frequency and speaker. Our data consists of transcripts of recurring meetings of the Federal Reserve's Open Market Committee (FOMC), where important aspects of U.S. monetary policy are decided on. Surprisingly, we find that words appearing in the context of hedging, which is usually considered a way to express uncertainty, are more likely to be repeated in subsequent meetings, while strong emphasis indicated by superlatives has a slightly negative effect on word recurrence in subsequent meetings. We also observe interesting patterns in how these effects vary depending on social factors such as status and gender of the speaker. For instance, the positive effects of hedging are more pronounced for female speakers than for male speakers.
Three experiments were conducted to determine the psychometric properties of language in dyadic interactions. Using text-analysis, it was possible to assess the degree to which people coordinate their word use in natural conversations. In Experiments 1 (n = 130) and 2( n = 32), college students interacted in dyadic conversations in laboratory-based private Internet chat rooms. Experiment 3 analyzed the official transcripts of the Watergate tapes involving the dyadic interactions between President Richard Nixon and his aids H. R. Haldeman, John Erlichman, and John Dean. The results of the three studies offer sub- stantial evidence that individuals in dyadic interactions exhibit linguistic style matching (LSM) on both the conversation level as well as on a turn-by-turn level. Furthermore, LSM is unrelated to ratings of the quality of the interaction by both participants and judges. We propose that a coordination-engagement hypothesis is a better description of linguistic behaviors than the coordination-rapport hypothesis that has been proposed in the nonver- bal literature. For years social psychologists have exalted the power of the situa- tion. We comfortably acknowledge that across different situations, with different people, we may act in a range of ways, or even talk using a variety of styles. Aware of this tendency, Gergen (1972) began his explorations of our shifting masks of identity. In writing letters to close friends, he realized that he came across as a "completely different per- son" in each letter. "In one, I was morose, pouring out a philosophy of existential sorrow; in another I was a lusty realist: in a third I was a lighthearted jokester" (p. 32). Based merely on his word choices, Gergen inadvertently varied his style to adapt to the recipients of his letters. This is a prime demonstration of our inherent knowledge of the mutability of our language with respect to varying social contexts. Conversational participants tend to immediately and unconsciously adapt to each other's language styles: a speaker will even adjust the number of articles and other function words in their next utterance in response to the number in their partner's immediately preceding utterance. This striking level of coordination is thought to have arisen as a way to achieve social goals, such as gaining approval or emphasizing difference in status. But has the adaptation mechanism become so deeply embedded in the language-generation process as to become a reflex? We argue that fictional dialogs offer a way to study this question, since authors create the conversations but don't receive the social benefits (rather, the imagined characters do). Indeed, we find significant coordination across many families of function words in our large movie-script corpus. We also report suggestive preliminary findings on the effects of gender and other features; e.g., surprisingly, for articles, on average, characters adapt more to females than to males.