Theme 2

The Ethnography
of Speaking and
the Structure of
Conversations
 Varieties of Talk

What’s the link between speech and behavior?

Speech used in different ways among different
groups of people.
Each group has its own norms of linguistic behavior.
 Varieties of talk

What’s the purpose of «cooperation» within

communication?
 The !Kung

Marshall has indicated

how the !Kung have
certain customs which
help them either to avoid
or reduce friction and
hostility within bands and
between bands
 The !Kung

Speech among the !Kung

helps to maintain peaceful
social relationships by
allowing people to keep in
touch with one another
about how they are
thinking and feeling.
 The !Kung

- Talkative – Taboo sex and

their gods.
- Talk used to maintain
peaceful social relationships
- Talk is used to resolve
tension, to avoid uncertainty
and to keep in touch
 Western Apache

The view of Silence

The Western Apache of
East-Central Arizona
choose to be silent when
there is a strong
possibility that uncertainty
exists.
 Western Apache
- Do not easily start new
social relationships
- Silence – express feelings -
greeting - children returning
from boarding schools
- When cussed-out, silence
the apprpriate response
even if it is undeserved
 Western Apache

What’s the importance of silence?

- Silence used to maintain social
relationships
- Silence used to resolve
different kinds of tension, to
avoid uncertainty and to start
new relationships
 Varieties of talk

The view of silence and

talkativess from our point of
view?
- When is silence view as a
positive sign?
- When is it important not to
remain silent?
 Varieties of talk
The Puliyanese
- Neither cooperative nor
competitive?
- Tend to do their own things
- Do not find much to talk
about
- By the time they are 40 they
hardly seem to talk about.
 Varieties of talk
The Aritama
- Taciturn, deliberately evasive speech
The Danes
- Positive view of silence (long periods of time without
saying a word)
- Visitors insisting on talking are considered too
demanding
- No need of filling up silences with idle chatter
 The Rotinese
- Fox (1974) has decribed how
the Roti consider talk one of the
great pleasures of life . Not just
idle chatter but disputing,
arguing, showing off various
verbal skills, and in general,
indulging in verbal activity.
 The Rotinese

Silence is interpreted as a
sign of some kind of
distress, possibly confusion
or dejection.
So social encounters are
talk-filled.
 Varieties of talk
The Bella Coola
- Talkative and prize wittiness
The Araucanians
- Differences between male and
female speech – men take great
pride in their oratorical skills –
women maintain silence in the
presence of their husbands.
 Antiguan Talk
In Antigua, people speak
because they must assert
themselves through
language. They do not
consider as interruptions
behavior that we would
consider being either
interruptive or even
disruptive.
 The Subanun
The Subanun of the
Philippines, who employ
certain kinds of speech
in drinking encounters.
Such encounters are
very important for
gaining prestige and for
resolving disputes.
 The Subanun
“Drinking Talk”
It proceeds from the initial
invitation to partake of drink, to
the selection of proper topics for
discussion as drinking proceeds
competitively, and finally to
displays of verbal art that
accompany heavy successful
drinking.
The ethnography of SPEAKING

The etnography of speaking

=
The ethnography of communication

What is it?
 The ethnography of SPEAKING
Theoretically, communication is a way of sharing
knowledge and maintaining social relationships.
Practically, communication aspects can vary
according to geographical areas, social class,
gender, age and level of education.
 The ethnography of SPEAKING
Overview of Ethnography
Ethnography is a field of study which is concerned
with culture, linguistics, or language codes.
The ethnography of communication is a method in
the study of culturally distinctive means and
meanings of communication.
Founded by Dell Hymes
 The ethnography of SPEAKING
The Focus
Discover the variety of norms and functions which
are available for communication.
Establish the way such forms and functions are part
of different ways of life.
Analyze patterns of communication as part of
cultural knowledge and behavior.
 The ethnography of SPEAKING
Used to produce research reports about locally patterned
practices of communication, and focus attention primarily
on the situated uses of language.
participant observation in the contexts of everyday
social life
interviewing participants about communication in those
contexts.
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

Studies the norms and rules for using language in social

situations in different cultures, nonverbal aspects of
communication, e.g. distance between speaker and hearer,
eye contact, etc.
Important for cross-cultural communication and to account for
its relation to communicative competence.
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

Deals with aspects such as the different types of

language to be used under different circumstances.
how to make requests, grant permission, ask for a
favor;
how to express opinions or interrupt your
interlocutor;
how and when to use formulaic language
(greetings, thanking, etc. ), etc.
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

The Ethnographer
- Describes the patterned used of speech
- Interprets the meaning speech has in a particular
community.
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

The Ethnographer
- Describes the patterned used of speech
- Interprets the meaning speech has in a particular
community.
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

Dell Hymes´descriptive framework (Hymes, 1972) is

intended to be used to look at any naturally occurring
speech to discover the rules for speaking (modes of
speaking, topics, message forms within particular
settings and activities)
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

How to use the ethnography of speaking or

communication as a method to analyze speech events?

EOC can be used as a means by which to study the

interactions among members of a specific culture
“speech community“
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

The model devised by Hymes can be best explained as

´SPEAKING´
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

S: What are the setting and scene of the communication

practice
o This component explores two aspects of context: the
physical setting in which it takes place, and the scene,
the psychological setting (range of formality and
sense of play or seriousness) i.e., the participants’
sense of what is going on when this practice is active.
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

P: Who are the participants in this practice?

o Communication is conceptualized as an event in which
people participate, moving away from typical encoding
and decoding models (senders and receivers of
messages.)
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

Whom the act is addressed to, and who it is uttered

by, is significant. In various situations, participants are
allocated communication roles by culture. E.g. a
chairperson, a therapist, a patient, a client, a teacher,
a pipil, etc.
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

E: What are the ends of this practice?

Some speech events have conventional outcomes, for
example a diagnosis, a sale, or a veredict. These as
well as individual goals are significant.
Ends can be analyzed as follows: the goals participants
may have in doing the practice, and the outcomes
actually achieved.
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

In the event of joke–telling, many of us are familiar

with an off–color joke, the goal of which was to
entertain, with the outcome offending.
Communication practice, generally, may target some
goals, yet attain other outcomes (intended and not).
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

A: What act sequence is involved in and for this practice?

o The order of events that take place during the speech
o A careful look at the sequential organization of the
practice, its message content, and form is important
(telephone conversation).
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

K: How is the practice being keyed?

o The overall tone or manner of the speech.
o What is the emotional pitch, feeling, or spirit of
the communication practice?
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

e.g. funerals are mostly keyed as reverent and serious.

Others can be keyed as more light–hearted.
The ways practices are keyed, and the ways the key can
shift from moment to moment, are questions raised and
analyzed with this component.
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

I: What is the instrument or channel being used in this

communication practice?
The form and style of the speech being given.
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

o The oral mode may be necessary, or it could be

prohibited in favor of a specific gesture or bodily
movement.
o Is a technological channel preferred?
o Should the practice be conducted in print or via a
face–to–face channel?
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

N: What norms are active when communication is

practiced in this way and in this community?

What is socially acceptable at the event?

 The ethnography of SPEAKING

o This component distinguishes the two senses of

norms that may be relevant to a communication

norms for interaction norms of interpretation

 The ethnography of SPEAKING

Norms for Interaction

“Prescriptive statements of behavior, of how people
´should´ act, which are tied to be the shared values of
the speech community” (Saville-Troike 1989)
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

Norms of Interpretation
Refer to all that cultural knowledge needed to fully
understand a communicative event.
They usually constitute a frame of reference, some
kind of background knowledge against which nom of
interaction are created and evaluated.
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

Norms of Interpretation
Saville-Troike (1989)
Norms of interpretation may be related to rules of use
[norms of interaction] in the prescriptive sense, but
the positive or negative valuation and sanction which
characterize the latter are not a necessary condition
for the existence of the former.
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

G: Is there a genre of communication of which this

practice is an instance?
o The type of speech act. Might involve identifying the
practice as a type of a formal or informal genre such
as verbal fighting, or a riddle, or a narrative. (e.g.
the final research paper; a small talk before a class).
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

Discussion
 What can you say about the norms of linguistic
behavior?
Speech is used differently by different groups of people,
so each group has its own norms of linguistic behavior.
The !Kung (Importance of talk)
Western Apache (The meaning of silence)
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

What does Hymes offer in his SPEAKING formula?

A reminder that talk is a complex activity, and that any
particular bit of talk is actually a piece of ‘skilled work’.
It is skilled in the sense that, if it is to be successful,
the speaker must reveal a sensitivity to and awareness
of each of the eight factors outlined before.
 The ethnography of SPEAKING

The major value of the ethnography of speaking to

sociolinguistics was setting up an approach to language
that went far beyond the attempt to account for single
written or spoken sentences.
It widened the scope to include all aspects of the
speech event (the structure of conversations)
 The structure of conversations

What’s the purpose of conversations?

According to Brown and Yule (1983) conversations
have two main purposes:
Transactional vs Interactional
 The structure of conversations

Transactional – spoken language used to obtain goods

or services – also referred to as service encounters;
 The structure of conversations

Interactional – spoken language used to allow people to

interact with each other – which features a phatic use
of language whose purpose is to establish an
atmosphere and allow people to socialize.
 The structure of conversations

Macro and micro structure of conversations

 The structure of conversations

Macro structure of conversations

Opening section (sociability)
Main body or substance section (shifting topical
focus . topical organization)
Closing section (sociability)
 The structure of conversations

Micro structure of Conversations

Made up of a number of features that make up human
conversation.
What features can we consider?
 The structure of conversations

1. Turn-taking and turn allocation

2. Feedback
3. Turns: adjacency pairs
4. Insertion sequence
5. Error and repair
6. Overlap in speeches
The Cooperative Principle
The Principle of Politeness
 The structure of conversations

1. Turn-taking and turn allocation

Turn taking mechanisms may vary between cultures and
languages.
• When the current speaker selects the next speaker,
the next speaker has the right to and is obliged to
commence the turn
 The structure of conversations

• If the current speaker does not select the next

speaker, any one of the speakers has the right to
self-select and become the next speaker
• If neither the next speaker selects the next speaker
nor the next speaker self-selects, the current
speaker may restart his or her turn
Sacks, Schegloff and Jeffeson (1974:704)
 The structure of conversations

Turn Construction Unit (TCU) - A building component of a

turn in a conversation. A unit of conversation that
completes a communicative act.
Lexical TCU ´Yes´
Phrasal TCU ´I mean´
Clausal TCU ´once you finish…´
Sentential TCU ´You sure deserve the prize´
 The structure of conversations

Transition Relevance Place (TRP -the end of a TCU),

marks a point where the turn may go to another speaker,
or the present speaker may continue with another TCU.
The change of turn occurs only in the TRP.
 The structure of conversations

Transition Relevance Place

Change-of-turn points in discourse: TRPs differ from
social group to group
• TRP features: speakers 1. cooperate or
2. fight for floor
Floor: "the right to speak", who controls the floor has
the turn
 The structure of conversations

Pauses:
• Enable elegant transition of turns
• Long pauses: 1st speaker hands over turn, 2nd
speaker: silent
• Short pauses overlaps
 The structure of conversations

Overlaps:
• occur often initially (both speakers start)
• shared rhythm mismatch: repeated start-overlap-stop
pattern
• younger speakers: permanent overlap signals closeness
• competing speakers: overlap seen as interruption
appeal to conversation rules "Could I make this point,
please?"
 The structure of conversations

Two major types of conversational style:

1. high involvement style: active talk, almost no
breaks, some overlap
2. high considerateness style: slower rate, longer
pauses, no overlap, no interruption
 The structure of conversations

2. Feedback
Participants show they are participating and following
the utterances of other participants by providing
feedback.
Can you think of the feedback you normally give your
interlocutor?
 The structure of conversations

3. Adjacency Pairs
Pairs of utterances that normally occur together and help
structure a conversation.
A.P. contain an exchange of one turn each by two
speakers. The turns are so related to each other that the
first turn requires a range of specific type of response in
the second turn (a sequence that contains functionally
related turns)
 The structure of conversations

Question – Answer Pair

Q. When will you be home
A. At 5 o’clock
Greeting – Greeting Pair
G. Good morning Sam.
G: Good morning.
Request – Acceptance/Rejection
R: Can I use your pen for one minute.
A: Yes, please have it/ R: I am sorry. It’s the only one I have
 The structure of conversations

Inform – Acknowledgement
I: You have to see the head of department before he leaves for the Senate
meeting at 4.
A: Okay.
Apology – Acceptance/Rejection
App.: I am sorry, I could not make the appointment
Acc.: That’s okay, we can fix another time/ Rej.: You have no excuse. You
just kept me waiting.
Congratulations – Thanks
C: Congratulations on your PhD. T: Oh, thanks
 The structure of conversations

In an adjacency pair, the first pair part invites, limits, and

partially determines the meaning and range of possible
second pair part.
- Tag Questions
Play a special role in adjacency pairs. How a tag question
operates depends very much on intonation and the context
it is used in
 The structure of conversations

Tag questions can indicate a desire for agreement or

support:
‘this is a nice colour, isn’t it?
They can also be assertive devices for prompting a response
or for directing what the response should be:
‘you’re not leaving now, are you?
 The structure of conversations

Tag questions can indicate a desire for agreement or

support:
‘this is a nice colour, isn’t it?
They can also be assertive devices for prompting a response
or for directing what the response should be:
‘you’re not leaving now, are you?
 The structure of conversations

Adjacency pairs are normal in

conversations, but sometimes
they do not necessarily occur.
Do you know why?
 The structure of conversations

Some instances may affect the flow of adjacency pairs.

e.g. when a person decides to ask another question after
being asked a question, the flow is disrupted.
This is called an insertion into what would have been a
normal sequence of conversation. This is called insertion
sequence.
 The structure of conversations

4. Insertion Sequence
Conversations usually occur in pairs - we have question-
answer, request acceptance/rejection, invitation-
acceptance/rejection, etc.
An insertion sequence is a sequence of turns or interventions
between the first and second parts of an adjacency pair.
 The structure of conversations

It is a kind of delay in which the response expected is not given, rather,

an entirely different, though related response is given- e.g.
Sam: When are you traveling back to London?
Eve: Why do you ask?
Sam: I would like to send you with a parcel to my auntie in Woolwich.
Eve: Okay, I will be going in a week’s time.
 The structure of conversations

A: shall I wear the blue shoes?

B: you’ve got the black ones.
A: They’re not comfortable
B: Yeah, they’re the best then, wear the blue ones.
Insertion sequences occur in situations when people do not
want to provide a direct response to an elicitation until they
are sure of the intention of the speaker as we can see in the
conversation pieces above.
 The structure of conversations

- Preferred and dispreferred responses

Questions are expected to be complemented by an answer.
(preferred response)
Not to answer a question, or to answer at inappropriate
length, either too shortly or at excessive length, or to answer
a question with another question, are considered dispreferred
responses and tend to interrupt the smooth flow of a
conversation.
 The structure of conversations

5. Error repair Mechanisms

In conversation, we do not always say things the correct
ways we desire to say them. When we did not say what we
ought to say, we still have a way of saying them. This is
called error repair – used by both participants to ensure:
- co-operation
- full understanding
 The structure of conversations

6. Overlap in speeches
An overlap in speech occurs when two or more
interlocutors are talking at the same time. It can also be
described as occurrences of two or more participants
trying to take their turns at the same time after the
previous speaker had finished or is about to finish his
turn.
 The structure of conversations

The real overlap occurs when the two participants start

their turns simultaneously and none of them relinquishes
the floor for the other. This is not always the case in a
normal conversation.
The Cooperative Principle
 The Cooperative Principle

Paul Grice (1975)

The success of conversation - the various approaches to
interaction.
When we communicate we assume, without realizing it, that we,
and the people we are talking to, will be conversationally
cooperative.
 The Cooperative Principle

This conversational cooperation even works when we are not

being cooperative socially.
e.g. people arguing angrily (they cooperate quite a lot to achieve
the argument)
This conversational cooperation manifests itself in a number of
conversational Maxims which we feel the need to abide by.
 The Cooperative Principle

The Maxims look at first sight like rules, but they appear to be
broken more often than grammatical or phonological rules are
(Maxim rather than rule)
The Four Conversational maxims
Grice (1975) proposed the four maxims of ´quantity´, ´quality´,
´relation´, and ´manner´.
 The Cooperative Principle
Quantity
Make your contribution as informative as required (for the
current purpose of the exchange)
It should be neither too little, nor too much (it is not clear how
one can decide what quantity of information satisfies the maxim
in a given case)
Q. Where did Mary go?
A. She went downtown.
 The Cooperative Principle

Quality
Speakers should be truthful. They should not say what they think
is false, or make statements for which they have no evidence.
Q. What is it like outside?
A. Snowing
 The Cooperative Principle

Relation
Be relevant.
Speakers contributions should relate clearly to the purpose of
the exchange.
Q. Would you like to go to a movie?
A. I have to study for an exam.
 The Cooperative Principle

Manner
Speakers´ contributions should be perspicuous: clear, orderly
and brief, avoiding obscurity and ambiguity.
A: The man who lives with Mary is Bob. (Bob is not her husband
or would have said so)
 Maxim Violations

1. Direct violation
When speakers break one of the
maxims directly without expressing
they are doing it.
e.g. when people try to deceive the
listener.
2. Signaling a violation (minor violation)
A Person might essentially come out and tell you they are
violating the maxim and why.
´I don´t know if this is relevant but…´ (relation)
´I’m not sure how to say this, but…´ (manner)
´I can’t tell you; I’m sworn to secrecy.´ (quantity)
´This is just the word on the street; I can’t assure this
information´(quality)
3. Maxim Clash
Violating one maxim in order to preserve another e.g.
Carson is driving John to Mary’s house
Carson: where does Mary live?
John: Nevada
Maxim violated: Quantity
Why: clash between quantity and quality. Carson is looking for a street’s
address but John gives a weaker, less informative statement (quantity
violation)
4. Flouting a Maxim
It is normally done to achieve a very specific effect and
communicate a specific meaning, known as a conversational
implicature, in other words, the special meaning created when a
maxim is disobeyed. E.g.
John: Where’s Mary?
Elizabeth: The control room or the science lab.
Maxim violated:
Quantity, Elizabeth didn’t give as much information as John wanted (Mary’s exact
location)
Implication:
Elizabeth doesn’t know which of the two places Mary is.
Simon: When are you coming home?
Elizabeth: I will codify that question to my superiors and respond at such a time as an
adequate answer is preparable.

Maxim violated:
Manner, Elizabeth is using unnecessarily complicated and confusing words and
construction.
Implication:
Elizabeth doesn’t know or doesn’t wish to give an answer to the question.
Mary: You really love me?
John: I like Ferris wheels, and college football, and things that go fast.

Maxim violated:
Relation, John is changing the topic.
Implication:
Either John doesn’t want to respond Mary (perhaps he has problems discussing his
feelings) or the answer is ´no´.
Elizabeth: A lot of people are depending on you.
Mary: Thanks, that really takes the pressure off.

Maxim violated:
Quality; knowing that a lot of people are depending on you´ does not in fact, take the
pressure off. Mary is saying something obviously untrue.
Implication:
By saying something clearly untrue, Mary is implying that the opposite is true (sarcasm).
The true meaning being expressed here is probably more like ´That really puts a lot of
pressure on me´ and perhaps, by extension, ´stop pressuring me´.
 Politeness

In sociolinguistics and conversation analysis (CA), politeness

strategies are speech acts that express concern for others and
minimize threats to self-esteem ("face") in particular social
contexts.
 Politeness

The Principle of Politeness

Besides cooperation, most interactions are governed by
politeness, that is to say by what is considered a ‘polite social
behavior’ within a certain culture.
The Politeness principle is a series of maxims, which Geoffrey
Leech has proposed as a way of explaining how politeness
operates in conversational exchanges.
 Leech’s Maxims
Tact Maxim
Minimize cost to other (maximize benefit to other)
Generosity Maxim
Minimize benefit to self; (maximize cost to self)
Approbation Maxim
Minimize dispraise of other (maximize praise of other)
Modesty maxim
Minimize praise of self (maximize dispraise of self)
 Leech’s Maxims

Agreement Maxim
Minimize disagreement between self and other; (maximize
agreement between self and other)
Sympathy Maxim
Minimize antipathy between self and other; (maximize sympathy
between self and other)
 Face and Politeness

Linguistic politeness also involves the concept of ‘face’.

The most influential theory of politeness is the concept of 'face'

as proposed by E. Goffman in 1967.
 Face and Politeness

“… the positive social value a person effectively claims for

himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular
contact.”
Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social
attributes — albeit an image that others may share as when a
person makes a good showing for his profession or religion by
making a good showing for himself.
 Face and Politeness

Within politeness theory 'face' is best understood as every

individual's feeling of self-worth or self-image; this image can be
damaged, maintained or enhanced through interaction with others.
Face has two aspects — 'positive' and 'negative'.
 Face and Politeness

"Brown and Levinson (1978/1987) distinguish between positive

and negative face.
An individual's positive face is reflected in his/her desire to be
liked, approved of, respected and appreciated by others.
An individual's negative face is reflected in the desire not to be
impeded or put upon, to have the freedom to act as one chooses.
 Face and Politeness
Face Threatening Acts - FTAs
Speech that represents a threat (intimidation) to another
persons’ face.
e.g., using a direct speech act to make someone do something.
(normally when people have more social power than the other
person)
If you have that power, it makes your speech act a FTA.
 Face and Politeness
Face Threatening Acts - FTAs
 Face and Politeness

Face Saving Acts

An indirect speech act is an example of a face-saving act. FSAs
are meant to reduce potential threats to the other person’s
face.
e.g. formulating a direct speech act as a question, removes the
assumption of social power. Then the person appears to be
enquiring about ability and not issuing an order.
 Face and Politeness

Face Saving Acts

 Face and Politeness Strategies

Strategies people use to reduce the imposition:

Hedging:
Er, could you, er perhaps, close the, um, window?
Pessimism:
I don’t suppose you could close the window, could you?
 Face and Politeness Strategies

Indicating deference:
Excuse me, sir, would you mind If i asked you to close the
window?
Apologizing:
I’m terribly sorry to put you out, but could you close the window?
Impersonalizing:
The management requires all windows to be closed.
 Politeness Strategies

Four strategies in ascending order

- Bald on-record
No attempt to minimize threat to listener’s face.
e.g. Close the window
 Politeness Strategies
Loss Face
Offending someone’s face
 Politeness Strategies

- Positive Politeness
Attempts to minimize threat to listener’s face by offering
compliments, framing a request as a question, or emphasizing
that the speaker likes, appreciates, and /or respects them.
e.g. Could you please close the window?
 Politeness Strategies

- Negative Politeness
Attempts to minimize threat to listener’s face by emphasizing
their autonomy.
Speaker assumes they are imposing on the listener in some
way.
e.g. I’m sorry to bother you, but could you
please close the window?
 Politeness Strategies

- Indirect/Off-record
Attempts to minimize threat to listener’s face by speaking
indirectly or generally.
Since the speaker is not making a direct request to the listener
at all, the listener’s response feels like a completely autonomous
choice.
e.g. Oh dear, it’s cold in here!
 Politeness Strategies
Exercises
Name the politeness strategy being used in each of the following
utterances.
- You look gorgeous today
- I’m so busy, I don´t know how I’ll find time to get the dishes done.
- I apologize for taking up so much of your time
- You’ll eat your peas and you’ll like it mister.