Pellerito1

Jack Pellerito
Marisa Enos
ENG.111.W02
25 February 2017
Story-Telling Problems
When stories are told, it is thought of as a simple process. However, there is more to it

than meets the eye. When a story is told, it has to be understandable, at least to some degree. It

also has to be in a common language of both the teller and the listener, it wouldn't work any

other way. Two authors have different viewpoints on the subject, but both provide important

information on why storytelling, and having a conversation in which both sides completely

understand, can be a difficult task. bell hooks explains in her article "Language: Teaching New

Worlds/Words" how when Africans were forced over to the Americas and had their languages

taken from them and English forced upon them, it was a difficult time. Roger Schank explains in

his article "Story Skeletons" how when people are having a conversation with someone or telling

a story, they must put their words into a specific format in which the other person can understand

what is being said. Together, Schank and hooks provide the strong argument that telling stories

and speaking to each other isn't quite as easy as it seems because of the limitations of language,

the differences in cultures, and the mindset of the speaker.

Although language allows people to do so much, it isn't perfect. It can hold people back

from truly communicating what they want to say. It has its limitations and sometimes there aren't

words or formalities of language that allow a certain conversation to be held. In his article,

Schank uses a term called story skeletons to explain how we set our stories up so that others can

understand them. When a story is told, the authors "enter a storytelling situation wanting to tell a

certain kind of story and only then worrying about whether the facts fit onto the bones of the
 Pellerito2

skeleton that they have previously chosen"(Schank 131). This means they might come across as

explaining something different than they originally intended. If language were limitless, they

would not have to find a way to relate their story to others, they could simply explain it perfectly

with an infinite number of ways to do so and everyone would understand. In addition to this

reason, hooks explains how when language is used how it is today, people can "shape it to

become a territory that limits and defines"(hooks 56). Although hooks thinks that language is

unlimited, unlike Schank, she means here that by using language, people cause it to become a

limiting factor. People cannot figure out how to use language in a way that allows it to be

limitless and understandable to all, whether in a story or a conversation. They cannot figure out

how to let language cross the barriers of different cultures and ethnicities, which is a whole other

problem.

Besides being limited by language, people have caused more issues with it by not

allowing language to cross barriers such as race or ethnicity. For some odd reason they think that

language should be unique to their race or culture, and this causes many problems because it can

even cause problems in conversation between two people from different states. Schank explains

how "when we select a particular skeleton from a political point of view, we, most likely, will

begin to believe the story we find ourselves telling"(Schank 133). This means that people

understand how things occurred or what they hear based upon their beliefs. In every area of the

world, there are always slightly different beliefs, and because of this, it is often difficult for

speakers to relate to each other if they take their culture and beliefs into account. If speakers truly

want to be understood, they have to say things as they mean them and not take culture or belief

into account. hooks would agree with this point of Schank's and shows what she means when she

says "Africans first [heard] English as 'the oppressor's language' and then re-hearing it as a
 Pellerito3

potential site of resistance"(hooks 57). Because Africans thought of themselves as Africans, they

were unable to forget their culture and because of this they saw English as a language they

wanted no part of. This caused them to be unable to communicate with the English speaking

people and vise versa. If they had forgotten their culture, although this would have been wrong

and they had no reason to, they would have been able to easily comprehend English and hold

conversations with their captors. By bypassing the mental barriers set by our culture and using

language as a thing that can cross those barriers, people could truly communicate. However,

there is one more issue similar to the last that causes conversation to have issues: the mindset of

the speaker.

Whenever someone speaks, they always have a mindset about the conversation or story

being discussed. Although this is similar to culture and ethnicity differences causing issues in

conversation, it is a smaller scale problem in nature. This doesnt mean it isn't as bad of a

problem, but it takes place on a smaller scale. If two conversationists have different mindsets on

an issue, even if they are from the same culture, neighborhood, or city, they could have issues

communicating because they aren't thinking about what they are saying in the same way. This is

one of Schank's main points and he reiterates this multiple times throughout his article. One

specific time is when he says "when we tell a story in a given way, we will be most likely to

remember the facts in terms of the story we just told" (Schank 133). This means if a person were

to say something with one mindset, even if they were wrong, they would begin to believe what

they say because that is how the mind works. If two people are discussing something, deep in

conversation, and both have a different mindset, they might have totally different beliefs about a

given topic and because of this they may not be able to meet in conversation and might think

they understand one another while not completely grasping the entire issue or idea given by the
 Pellerito4

other speaker. Both the authors agree on this point as well. hooks says multiple times that

mindset strongly affects the ways people can communicate. During Africans trips to America,

because they had been forced to come, "the very sound of English had to terrify" (hooks 57). If

the English speakers and the Africans had had the same mindset on the situation, they might

have met somewhere in the middle and English could have intrigued the Africans. Because the

English had forced the Africans to come, it cause the Africans to have a mindset that the English

speakers were bad. This caused problems with communication between the English and the

Africans. Simple actions can cause small changes in mindset, and because of this,

communication can be impossible.

For a multitude of reasons, both hooks and Schank agree that communication can be

difficult. Although Schank would say language is limited, hooks would say it is the way we use

it that limits it, they both agree that a difference in culture or a difference in mindset can keep

communication from happening. Communication is not as simple as one person talking to

another. It requires a common language, a common or very similar mindset, a common culture in

most cases, and the language to be used properly so as not to limit the speaker. Schank and hooks

provide great information on the issues with communication, and with this information we could

learn to truly communicate with one another.

 Pellerito5

Works Cited

Schank, Roger. "Story Skeletons". Exploring Connections: Learning in the 21 st Century.

Pearson Education Inc, 2016, pp. 128-140

hooks, bell. "Language: Teaching New Worlds/New Words". Exploring Connections:

Learning in the 21st Century. Pearson Education Inc, 2016, pp. 55-60