Conversation conduct

W. Labov has pointed out that there is a number of rules for the interpretation of conversational discourses that adults have mastered and that children do not always understand.. The rule is this: if speaker A makes a request for information and speaker B 's response is not related linguistically to the question ('No, I'm not), then that response must be interpreted as asserting that there exists a proposition, known to both A and B, which makes a connection, and from which an answer to A 's question can be inferred (holidays cost money). Proposition is defined as an expression in language that can be believed, doubted, or denied or is either true or false. This rule of interpretation is very strong. If we hear a sequence of utterances that seem, on the face of it, to be totally disconnected, such as:

A Are you going on holiday this year?

B My aunt has just bought a bicycle.

we, nevertheless, try to force an interpretation on the conversa­tion by searching for a proposition that might make sense of it. It is also of course possible for B to be mistaken in assuming that A shares knowledge of the proposition, or for A to deny the le'gitimacy (законность) of the proposition:

A Are you going on holiday this year?

BI haven't got any money!

A So what?

The fact that the rules for interpretation of discourses exist can easily be demonstrated by showing what happens when they are broken. Wolfram, for instance, investigated people's reactions to questioning of the sort:

A How old are you?

B 33.

A How come?

There is a rule of discourse interpretation which says that a ‘ How come?’ question involves an assertion that there exists a non-obvious proposition which is known to B, but which is not known to A. Wolfram interfered with the operation of this rule through asserting that it was not obvious why B was 33. Reactions to his ‘ how come?’ question showed very clearly that something had gone wrong. Some people laughed, some were embarrassed, some made a joke of it - and others searched hard for a non-obvious proposi­tion that would make sense, such as: I look older than 33 because... or I'm still a student because....

Young children, of course, may have trouble with interpret­ing conversations, either because they are not familiar with a particular rule of interpretation, or because they are not yet aware of a particular proposition that is being asserted. The following would be a perfectly normal adult-child conversation:

Child Are we going on holiday this year?

Adult We haven't got enough money.

Child But are we going on holiday?

All societies, everywhere in the world, have rules about the way in which language should be used in social interaction. It is interesting to observe, however, that these rules may vary widely between one society and another. The study of these rules, and of cross-cultural differences in communicative norms, is often known as the ethnography of speaking. For instance, it is normal among English speakers for the answerer to speak first in telephone conversa­tions. There is nothing inevitable about this, though. Some people in Japan, for example, expect the caller to be the one to speak first. And there are other aspects of telephone behaviour too, that can differ from one culture to another.

The norm for French telephone conversations, which children are taught to conduct is very different, and goes more like this:

Answerer: Hello.

Caller: Is that 123-4567?

A: Yes.

C: This is Andre here. I'm sorry to disturb you. Is Jean there?

It is normal, that is, for callers to apologize for the intrusion, and to identify themselves first. In American telephone conversa­tions, callers are only really obliged to identify themselves if their intended addressee is not available:

A: Hello!

C: Is John near?

A: No, I'm afraid John's out at the moment.

C: OK. Please tell him Andy called.

Дата добавления: 2014-01-11