Chapter 17 Exercises: Verbal Communication in Courtship

Exercise 17.1: LSM By Hand — Then Verify with Python

Learning objective: Apply the LSM formula manually, then use the Python script to verify your calculations.

Time: 45–60 minutes | Format: Individual or paired

Instructions:

Part A — Collect your data

Find a text exchange from your own life — a recent conversation with someone you were getting to know, or pull up an old thread from a meaningful conversation. Select 10 consecutive messages (5 from each person), choosing a stretch of conversation that had some emotional weight — not purely logistical ("Are you coming tonight?" "Yes").

If you prefer not to use your own conversations, you may use the sample exchanges in the Python script.

Part B — Manual calculation

For each of the seven function word categories (articles, prepositions, pronouns, conjunctions, auxiliary verbs, negations, quantifiers), do the following for each speaker:

  1. Count the total words in that speaker's messages
  2. Count how many of those words fall in the current category
  3. Calculate the usage rate: count ÷ total words
  4. Apply the LSM formula: $\text{LSM}_{\text{cat}} = 1 - \frac{|r_A - r_B|}{r_A + r_B + 0.0001}$
  5. Record your component score

Average the seven scores to get your overall LSM.

Part C — Python verification

Paste your two text samples into the Python script (code/linguistic_style_matching.py). Replace the HIGH_RAPPORT conversation with Speaker A's text and Speaker B's text. Run the script and compare your manual results to the computed output.

Part D — Reflection (300–400 words)

  • How close were your manual calculations to the Python output? Where did they differ, and why?
  • What does your LSM score suggest about the conversation? Does it match your subjective experience of how that exchange felt?
  • Which categories showed the most divergence between the two speakers? What might that mean for the communication dynamics?
  • What are the limitations of applying LSM to a 10-message sample?

Exercise 17.2: Progressive Self-Disclosure — The Laddering Practice

Learning objective: Experience the reciprocity norm in self-disclosure through structured practice.

Time: 30–45 minutes | Format: Pairs (works best with a partner you don't know very well)

Instructions:

This exercise uses a structured three-level disclosure format based on Altman and Taylor's Social Penetration model.

Level 1: Surface (5 minutes each) Each partner answers the following question, aiming for genuine but not deeply personal responses: "What's something you've been interested in or preoccupied with lately?"

After both have answered, each person asks one follow-up question about what they heard.

Level 2: Middle depth (5 minutes each) Each partner answers: "What's something you believe that you haven't fully figured out how to explain to other people?"

After both have answered, each person asks one follow-up question.

Level 3: Deeper (5 minutes each) Each partner answers: "What's something you used to be certain about that you're now less sure of?"

After both have answered, each person asks one follow-up question.

Debrief questions (write individually, then optionally share):

  1. At which level did the conversation feel most alive? What changed between levels?
  2. Did you notice the reciprocity norm operating? Did your partner's disclosures influence how much you shared?
  3. Did you feel pressure to match the other person's disclosure level? Was that pressure useful or uncomfortable?
  4. What would have happened if one person had jumped straight to Level 3 without Level 1 and 2? What does this suggest about the function of disclosure progression?

Exercise 17.3: Deconstructing Pickup Lines — Strategic Ambiguity Analysis

Learning objective: Analyze verbal openers as examples of strategic ambiguity and what they signal about courtship norms.

Time: 30 minutes | Format: Individual, with class discussion

Instructions:

Below are five verbal openers collected from popular advice articles and pickup artist forums. For each one:

  1. Identify the strategic ambiguity mechanism — what interpretation does it invite if received well, and what interpretation is available if it's not?
  2. Assess the face protection — does this opener protect the speaker's face, the listener's face, both, or neither?
  3. Evaluate the implicit script — what does this opener assume about who is speaking, who is being spoken to, and what the social context is?
  4. Rate the plausible deniability on a scale of 1 (none at all) to 5 (entirely deniable)

The Five Openers:

A. "You look like you know the best places to eat around here."

B. "Is this seat taken? I wanted an excuse to sit somewhere interesting."

C. "You have the kind of face that makes people feel like they've met you before."

D. "You seem like someone who's read more than one book in the last year."

E. "I was just about to leave, but then I noticed you."

Written response (400–500 words):

After analyzing the five openers, write a short analytical response addressing: What do these openers reveal about the cultural assumptions embedded in "strategic ambiguity" as a courtship tool? Whose face is primarily being protected? Who bears the interpretive labor of figuring out whether this is flirtation or small talk? Does your analysis change if you imagine the speaker and listener swapping genders, races, or social positions?

Exercise 17.4: Interruption Pattern Analysis

Learning objective: Identify and categorize interruption patterns in a real conversation transcript.

Time: 40–50 minutes | Format: Individual or small group

Instructions:

Part A — Transcript analysis

The following is a brief conversational excerpt. Read it carefully and mark each interruption using the coding scheme:

  • [INT-I] = Intrusive interruption (stops the speaker, redirects the floor)
  • [INT-C] = Cooperative overlap (signals enthusiasm, builds on what's being said)
  • [INT-N] = Neutral (difficult to categorize)

Transcript:

Alex: So the thing I found most surprising was actually the way the professor structured the argument — it wasn't just a linear case, it was more like a—

Bea: —like a spiral? That's exactly what I thought! The chapters kept returning to the same—

Alex: Yes! I mean, I was going to say "loop" but spiral is better. Because it moves forward while it—

Bea: —comes back. Right. But then in the final chapter he just abandoned the whole thing and I felt like—

Alex: —wait, did you think the ending was a cop-out or did it—

Bea: —I thought it was a cop-out and also maybe the only honest—

Alex: Fair. Fair. Honestly, I wasn't sure what to—

Bea: Me neither. I read it twice and I'm still not sure.

Part B — Reflection questions

  1. How many interruptions did you find? How many are intrusive vs. cooperative?
  2. What does the interruption pattern in this excerpt suggest about the two speakers' relationship and interest level?
  3. How would this transcript read differently if these were two strangers on a first date versus two friends who know each other well? Would the same behaviors mean the same things?
  4. Using the research reviewed in the chapter (Zimmerman & West, 1975; Tannen, 1994; Anderson & Leaper, 1998), write 200–250 words contextualizing what you found. What does the research suggest about the limits of interruption analysis?