Conversational Analysis (2)
Conversation Analysis (2)*
1. Socializing (2)
Telling news is responsive to a recurrent rule of conversation**: don’t tell others what they already know. How is the rule managed in multi-party conversations***when one’s partner is present – who may be assumed to know a lot that you know? Sacks suggests two solutions. First, in such situations one could elect only to tell new things. But, as Sacks points out, this solution ‘has massive troubles involved in it which are reflected in…having their spouse complain “How come you never told me that”. Given this ‘trouble’, a preferred solution often chosen is for spouse actively to adopt the role of a hearer of ‘old’ news. They can do this by monitoring a partner’s talk for whether it is correctly presented and putting in corrections (often in overlapping posisions). However, this solution can also be a subsequent cause for complaint (the teller may say: ‘why did you tell the story so badly?’
Sack’s discussion of conversational news reporting shows that news is presented and heard as constructed for a particular audience. One implication of this is, as recipients of news, we have to provide ‘appropriate’ responses. Along these lines, Sacks*** reports a telephone call where the called party has just reported a stay in hospital for an operation. This report is received by ‘Oh…’ by the caller. After further details, the call concludes as follows:
Emma: but I’m better I wz, lying on the couch out’n front
Bernice: Oh…I’m sorry Emma?
Out of this apparently mundane conversation, Sacks generates a puzzle. Why don’t we hear ‘I’m sorry as ‘I’m sorry that you’re better’? It turns out that the first expectation on hearing such announcements is that the recipient will mark it as ‘newsworthy’ (as by the first drawn-out ‘Oh’). For, if we don’t at least do that (and do it first), the announcer can hear that we are not treating their announcement as particularly remarkable and hence challenging their credibility as proper newstellers. For instance, think of the impact of saying nothing after an announcement of good or bad news or even just saying ‘mm’, ‘I see’ or, still worse, ‘so?’
Sacks argues that only after we have fulfilled our role as a news recipient can we properly engage in other activities such as the expression of sympathy. So this caller’s ‘I’m sorry’ in this late position is not heard as meaning ‘I’m sorry that you are better’ but as a properly delayed expression of sympathy.
2. ‘Everyone Has to Lie’
If we look back at these examples, we can see how Sacks’s analysis is powerfully counter-intuitive. Ordinarily, if we think about it at all, we assume that what we say reflects our state of mind. However, what Sacks is showing us is that, in practice, we construct our talk by reference to how it will be heard. By saying what we do, positioned in a particular place, we thus make available to our hearer(s) a particular reading of what we mean.
The implication is that speaking and hearing are activities rather than the passive transmisson of thought processes. Moreover, these activities happen so quickly that it is implausible to think that they are usually done strategically or even with prior thought. Take the example of someone answering the question ‘How are you?’ by ‘Fine’ even if they acually feel lousy. Why do we dissemble? If you think about it, if we truthfully answer ‘lousy’, the appropriate next utterance from the hearer is the question ‘why?’. So by being truthful, we demand that the questioner should begin what Sacks calls a ‘diagnostic procedure’. Now this is hardly appropriate or polite in the many cases where ‘How are you?’ is to be heard as part of a greeting ceremony rather than as a ‘real’ question. Indeed, this may be the point of more formal greetings such as ‘How do you do?’ which properly elicit the same utterance from the other person.
As Sacks points out, a good guide to this matter are books of etiquette. From these it becomes clear that the person who answers ‘truthfully’ to a ceremonial question has all the makings of a bore. By contrast, by sometimes ‘lying’ when asked such a question, we show proper concern for what we and others should properly do.
Herein lies a paradox related to two opposing demands of proper behaviour. On the one hand, we are never supposed to lie. On the other, we would place other people in an unwelcome position if we failed to show concern with ‘the different consequences of (our) alternative answers’. It thus turns out, in the title of one of Sack’s published papers (1975), that ‘everyone has to lie’. Given the case of ‘honest’ bores, this is not something to be sad about but something for which to be grateful.
Now, of course, the maxim ‘everyone has to lie’ will be heard as only appropriate to certain occasions. For instance, it is unlikely to help you if you are found to lie when giving evidence in a court of law. Moreover, ‘everyone’ sometimes only refers to a relatively small group (that is, people we know, or everyone who is ‘anyone’).
By contrast, we sometimes restrict assertions to certain classes of people: lawyers, males, women. But do members of such classes whose qualities don’t fit our assertion disprove whartwe have said? For instance, can you disprove the assertion that ‘lawyers are all greedy’, by citing a case of one lawyer who often works for nothing? No, says Sacks. The failure of this person to conform to the assertion may simply reflect on ‘his status as a proper member of that class’ so the counter-example is represented as not ‘really’ a lawyer. In this way, formal and everyday logic part company.
Part of the reason for this is that, in everyday logic, generalizations don’t altogether work as statistical claims. For instance, if you are challenged about your actions, one effective response may be to say ‘everyone does don’t they?’. Here the appeal to ‘everyone’ works as a rhetorical device rather than a statistical claim. As such, it serves to limit your accountability for your act because such behaviour can be seen as ‘general’.
Similarly, invoking a proverb (say ‘better late than never’) is a powerful conversational move for reasons quite unconnected with whether the proverb is ‘true’ or even ‘true in this instance’. Sacks notes that using a proverb as a conversational opener typically produces a token of agreement from the hearer. In this respect, it may be yet another effective pick-up device.
By contrast, people who fail to agree with an invoked proverb will find that the conservation ia abruptly terminated by the proverb reciter. This may be because proverbs are usually treated as unchallengeable and therefore as something any conversationalist will know. Hence challenging a proverb is an effective means of resisting an intended pickup by means of a proverb statement.
* 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
06-07-2010
© 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