Imperative vs. declarative communication

Post Reply New Topic

There is some discussion regarding the autistic communities that we tend to use more imperative communication over declarative. Imperative communication is communication using questions or demands, whereas declarative communication uses relative thinking processes. Declarative communication is said to be the language of sharing experiences, taking perspectives and allying.

Does anyone feel this way? Supposedly, autistic people, including those with asperger's, are said to employ this imperative communication process about 1% of the time, whereas typical children employ it about 33%. I guess this comes into presence when we have trouble engaging in smalltalk, but it seems a bit more than that to me.

I notice many of us use self-narratives and even declamations quite often, like we will say what we want and how we feel. Many of us, at least from what I've seen on this forum, use the word "I" quite often. It is said that "I" is not used that much in imperative communication, and I have read somewhere where we tend to avoid using lots of pronouns. I also notice many people here using pronouns, which seems to go against. Of course, this may be implied primarily to children. I can't really say what my experience in this manner was when a child, because I've never paid that much attention to how I ever addressed communication, until now. I know I had made much more demands than anything else, though I probably did address myself as "I" quite often.

An imperative may be "Stop that." A declarative is to say "I want you to stop that." One implies talking to another person, but I think people who continuously speak in demanding tones can come off as quite arrogant, whether or not it is imperative or declarative. I'm not sure I fully follow this way of looking at communication.

- Ray M -

I think this is worthy of some discussion.

The way autistics use language is very revealing, both of autism, and of the use and purpose of language. Autistics generally are very egocentric, so while it's true we often don't use 2nd person pronouns very readily and have trouble with reciprocal language skills, we do use first person a LOT. One complaint I read once from a poetry critic about autistic poems was ALL their poems were in the first person and they seemed incapable of writing poetry from another prespective. Very telling, yes?

If you think about it, the statment, "I want you to stop" is very egocentric, even if declarative. It gives no reason or logic beyond personal desire, it's not revealing of motive, and it infers no avenue for reciprocity or compromise. Like "Stop!" it only expects compliance, so it's simply an imperative in declarative form. The only real difference is that "I want you to stop" is more emphatic by use of pronouns. The use of "you" here is hardly empathetic - it's only a specification that directs the imperative to certain individual. So I would still classify that as standard textbook communication mode for an autistic. True, we often fail to express our desire or motives for something, just as we fail to be demonstrative in other ways. But basic, unempathetic declarations of desire - "I want" "I need" "I have to" etc. -are certainly within most autsitcs' grasp, especially when used emphatically. It does come across as arrogant or rude, but hey, autistics are often accused of being arrogant and rude, largely due to their communciation style.

In terms of seeing a "contrast" here online, I think we need to compensate for the emergence of e-communications in the equation. Autistics are still human - we have inner lives and emotions, and we have the primal desire to communicate them, even if we lack the acquired skills and neuro-connections to do it successfully. Speaking to another person in person always necessitates the use of some reciprocal language skills, which we generally lack. So our attempts to engage another person (i.e,, "too connect with them") usually results in us spewing long, pedantic narratives and explanations (like mine here), which no matter how declarative, are not particularly reciprocal. The communication's still egocentric and one-sided, like imperative communciation. The response we get is annoyance, disinterest and avoidance. Eventually, we find avenues and opportunities for communication are unaccessible or have been closed to us. What to do? Get on the Internet and spew those long pedantric monologues online.

So I think we need to make a subtle distinction between more basic declarative communciation, and a more sophisticated style that is demonstrative of reciprocy, empathy, and awareness of differing prespectives. I've been around ASD forums for some time now, and I do see many people using the more basic form of declarative communication very often. But more sophisticated, reciprocal communication? I don't think we should assume that what we see in a forum is what it appears to be. It's very easy for someone to impersonally make a post, even about very intimate matters, or to impersonally respond to something someone else posted. Or to ignore posts. Does this happen this way in person-to-person communication? Can you just walk into a room and proclaim something about your emotion state, your pet peeves or your sexual desires, like happens so often in a forum like this? How do other people act when you respond impersonally to them, or outright ignore them? So while there's the appearences of reciprocal communciation in these online forum, we should probably look long and hard at that that before accepting that presumption.

To speak a little more personally about my own experience, it's been very challenging to learn genuine reciprocal communciation skills. I think I'm finally getting the hang of it, and I'm 35! When I was a kid, I did use a lot of imperative communciation, and then from the time I was 7 until about 30, I was stuck treading water with insufficient language skills, even if my communciation style was largely declarative. Hell, due to my neurotic need for verbosity, I'd say my style's overwhelmingly declarative, even in times that the imperative is more appropriate. If I tell you to stop, for example, I very likely will feel the need to explain to you why. But anyhow, I've become aware that reciprocal language is more significant than merely being able to hold someone's attention when talking ot them and to get them to respond and engage with you. I've learned that reciprocal langauge is vital to effectively communicaing my inner thoughts, feelings and motives. I mean, I can spend hours online spewing (and I have) but I find that unsatisfying, ultimately (and I have). I can make tons of declarations about this and that, but I see now my deeper motives for doing so wasn't to "inform" others, but attempts to enage, connect and eventually relate to others. And mostly, I've failed.

But I'm learning. LOL.

I tend to make a lot of statements such as "I believe such and such" because I want to highlight that it is my opinion, rather than "the truth".