Conversation Analysis (1)
Conversation Analysis (1)*
1. Socializing (1)**
The ability of some people to be able to enter the conversations with attractive strangers is something that puzzles a lot of us. Indeed, books with titles like ‚How To Win Friends’ usually sell very well. What is the knack involved? Have you ever said ‚hello’ to a stranger and been rebuffed? The problem ist hat such a greeting implies that you already knew the person concerned and hence had ‚an initial right to use „Hello“. Hence a stranger need not to return your greeting. One solution to this problem is to begin with questions to a stranger such as: ‚Don’t I know you from somewhere?’ ‚Didn’t I see you at such-and-such a place?’ ‚Aren’t you so-and-so?’ The advantage of the question form is that it is properly receipted by an answer. So not to answer a question, even if you suspect the motives of the questioner, is a difficult act to bring off. Moreover, having got that answer, the questioner properly may ask another question. In that way, conversations get started.
All this means that questions can be an effective ‚pick-up’ device. Indeed, in an exercise where a class was asked to provide examples of utterances which might start conversations with members of the opposite sex, around 90 per cent were questions. Among such questions, routine requests are a particularly powerful device. In addition to the obligation to provide an answer to a question, there is the expectation that we should not be needlessly rude to a stranger making a request for something as mundane as, say, the time. Moreover, the requester knows that she or he will get a standard, quick response and thus will soon be in a position to ask a further question which may start a longer conversation, for example:
A: When does the plane aarive?
B: 7:15.
A: Are you going to San Francisco also?
So questions can be good pick-up devices when you happen to find yourself in physical proximity to a stranger***. However, things get more complicated when the person you are interested in is part of larger crowd involved with you in a multi-party conversation. In this situation, Sacks asks, how do people get involved in a two-party conversation?
One possibility is to ask if anyone wants a drink and then to return with the drink to sit next to the particular target of your attention. In this way, the right ‚territorial’ situation can be created. Alternatively, one can try waiting until everybody other than the targeted party has left, or, more reliably, if there is music, offer an invitation to dance. Indeed, the institution of the dance can be seen as a nice solution to the problem of transforming multi-party into two-party conversation (although the noise of modern discos may limit this possibility).
These various devices underline Sacks’s point that the achievement of a two-party conversation is a skillful, collaborative accomplishment. But such collaboration is not limited to talk between strangers. Take the case of friends telling and receiving news from each other. It is sometimes noted that we have less news to give to someone we haven’t spoken to for, say, six months, than to someone to whom we speak nearly every day. As Sacks says:
Now how in the world would it be that you could have something to talk about every day with somebody, and not have something to talk about when you talk to them every six months? Why is it that you don’t have six months of news? You could figure that the less you talk with somebody, say a friend who lives in another city, the more you’d have to talk about.
The answer to this puzzle ist hat, as every reporter knows, what counts as news depends on ist immediacy. An item that may happily be reported to a friend the day after it happened, no longer appears to be newsworthy after six months. If something is not mentioned soon after it happened, then it can ‚amount to nothing’. So the items of news that you can tell after six months are only things that are worthy of attention over such a long period. And, ‚if you don’t have them, you have nothing to talk about’. To be able to manage a conversation after a long break as though it were a daily event is a special skill which is worthy of remark.
*Silberman, David. Harvey Sacks Social Science and Conversation Analysis. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0-19-521472-2
** Beniers, C.J.M. Bridging the Cultural Gap. http://www.slideshare.net/beniers/bridging-the-cultural-gap-1136131
***Beniers, C.J.M. Intercultural Communication. http://slideshare.net/beniers/presentations
Prof. C.J.M. Beniers
NL Zoetermeer
15-06-2010
© Copyright 2010
About Professor C.J.M. Beniers
Prof. C.J.M. Beniers is a well known authority in the field of modern and international communication techniques. He developed the Six-Component-Model. This model enables companies, institutions and politicians to communicate and negotiate with counterparts from all over the world successfully. His career began as international manager at Philips and later he earned his doctorate as professor in communication. He has more than 35 years experience as manager and management trainer. Thus he knows both sides – theory and praxis – very well. As scientist, Prof. Beniers conducts frequently research in the field of intercultural communication. The results of his interesting research can be found in news articles, free pod casts, audio books and his E-books such as “Bridging The Cultural Gap.” Here, modern managers learn how to prepare for business meetings with people from different cultures; they acquire the techniques and tools to handle situations in times of crises successfully, master intercultural barriers, country-specific communication patterns, looking into personal cultural values & systems. Knowing all this, men can prevent cultural misunderstandings and misinterpretations – not only in business but also in private life.
Contact:
Prof. C.J.M. Beniers
Amaliaplaats 2
2713 BJ Zoetermeer
The Netherlands
Telefone: +31 (0) 79 – 3 19 03 81
Mobile: +31 (0) 6 2 061 8494
Email: info@beniers-consultancy.com