THE SPOKEN WORD

INTRODUCTION

Spoken language, although it may not appear so with its hesitations, confusions, mixed messages, ‘inarticulacy’, is as governed by as many rules and regulations as written language and is as important a branch of LINGUISTICS as any other. In the past, spoken language has been seen in some way as inferior to writing, which is taught in schools according to a prescribed model of accuracy as defined, and enshrined, in Literature.

Spoken language is very different from written language and it is good that it is, because ‘…an identical spoken and written language would be intolerable. If we spoke as we write we should find no one to listen: and if we wrote as we speak we should find no one to read. The spoken and written language must not be too near together, as they must not be too far apart.’ (T. S. Eliot)

. It is not helpful to say that spoken language is ‘ungrammatical’, because it does not seem to have the regular order and structure that writing has. The analytical tools and terms used for spoken language are not always the same as those used for the dissection of the written. Consider the following exchange:

J: What about a drink?

F: Good idea. Where?

J: Somewhere in Lang Kwai?

Not one ‘sentence’ (in the written, grammatical sense) has been used, yet both reader and participants clearly understand what has been said; as a spoken exchange it is perfectly natural.

Spoken language is the PRIMARY form of communication, while written language is SECONDARY, because it has to be learned: very few people can write as well as they can speak. As a teacher of English I can testify to that.

It is important that students always remain aware of the complex nature of speech and how we manage it with such astonishing dexterity and skill. They will never master another skill as completely as they have done language and they must always be aware that the purpose of this course is to make explicit and known what we unconsciously have mastered with such ease. It is worth pointing out that they master language by the age of five and that the purpose of English lessons at school is simply to hone that which they already know.

Task 1

Brainstorm the purpose of language in general and the purpose of spoken language in particular. Note this as a spider or a tree diagram.

Write a short exchange like the one above that you have recently had, either at home or, as is more likely, with friends. Perhaps it was during break, or it was a greeting as you arrived at school? Try to make it as realistic as possible and include genuine speech features. Keep this safe because it can be used later on in the course.

THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

In the analysis of DISCOURSE (the body of ‘text’ for analysis: ‘discourse’ can be spoken or written) there is a whole host of theories about the construction of speech, but these are only artificial frameworks for that which comes naturally to all people. They are an attempt to ‘explain’ why talk happens in the way it does and why it happens in the first place. (see p24 ‘Investigating Talk’ in the ‘Living Language’ series).

These are interesting as an academic study, but not because one, or other, is a true definition of why and how conversation occurs. I happen to think that the theory of PRAGMATICS comes as close as any to logically explaining why people speak as they do, but only because it makes sense, not because in some way it is intrinsically ‘right’. We speak as we do because that is how human communication has evolved, not because we try to accord with a particular theory.

SPEECH ACT THEORY

The central tenet of this theory is that language PERFORMS communicative ACTS between speakers and listeners and is important in the language of ritual and ceremony, because after the act has been performed the STATE has changed between speaker and listener(s): a marriage ceremony, an apology, an arrest. The speech act can be prefaced by ‘hereby’ as a test for this theory:

I hereby apologise; I hereby pronounce you man and wife…

A further importance of this theory is the FELICITY CONDITIONS it states must be fulfilled for conversation to be successful:

  • You must have AUTHORITY to perform the speech act (teacher imparting knowledge, policeman arresting somebody)
  • You must perform the speech act CORRECTLY (introduce somebody correctly, greet somebody correctly)
  • You must perform the speech act SINCERELY (don’t pretend to agree if you don’t)

The other important aspect of this theory, so it is said, is that it is able to take into consideration the INDIRECT SPEECH ACT, when what is said might not be what is literally meant. ‘I’m boiling hot’ might mean that, but it might also mean ‘I could do with a drink’ or ‘open the window.’ Context will add to the meaning here, as will other attendant features (see later Grice’s Maxims and CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE).

Task 2

Write some short exchanges of your own, if possible based on real-life spoken word events, where indirect speech acts are used. Think about at home, or out with friends.

Begin to make a glossary of spoken word terms. Such a specialist SEMANTIC FIELD will become very helpful the further you get into the course.

EXCHANGE STRUCTURE THEORY

This is an interesting theory because it applies very much to a teacher-led lesson in the classroom. There is an interactional structure:

1. FRAMING move: ‘right, let’s begin’

  1. An INITIATING move: ‘what’s the capital of China?’
  2. A RESPONSE: ‘Beijing’
  3. Teacher FEEDBACK/EVALUATION: ‘well done’

This three-way response can be replaced by perhaps the more universal and thus more common ADJACENCY PAIR:

What’s the time?

Six o’ clock

The train’s late again

Yes, I’m fed up

It is possible to get an INSERTION SEQUENCEhere as well:

How much did these jeans cost?

Do you really want to know?

Yes?

$80

What is useful about this theory is that it can apply to many different conversations, not just classroom ones. All types of PHATIC COMMUNION generally rely on adjacency pairs, as do some comic routines, SERVICE ENCOUNTERS (transactional conversation) etc.

Task 3

Write a genuine example of this theory, either as an exchange between friends or one based on a classroom scenario.

NARRATIVE STRUCTURE THEORY

Labov sees narrative as central to all forms of written and spoken language. It can be defined as a unit of discourse with clear boundaries, a linear structure and recognisable stages in its development. There are very close connections with Freytag’s Pyramid, the theory behind short story structure:

  • Abstract (signals story is about to begin; gets listener’s attention; might ask permission to tell story; summary of story)
  • Orientation (context in which the story takes place: time, place, who involved, the ‘when, where, who, what of the story)
  • Narrative/complicating action (the story itself)
  • Evaluation (point of interest in the story; the effect of the experience)
  • Result/resolution (what finally happened)
  • Coda (signals the end: the conclusion)

It is quite possible or even probable that certain elements of this structure may be missing from any ‘story’. The Abstract may be missing because the listener has requested the story; the Orientation may be missing because the listener may be already privy to the time and place; Evaluation may take place at any time of the story. In fact, Evaluation is anything other than the actual narrative and can be as simple as “it is interesting because…”

The re-telling of a story or an account of an incident is an important aspect of everyday spoken language, from the student explaining why s/he is late to narrating a funny thing that happened on the way to the bar.

Task 4

Look at p40 in ‘Investigating Talk’ for a transcript that is appropriate as a MONOLOGIC anecdote. Apply Labov’s structure and notice how it helps to order and adds meaning to the telling of the incident. Notice the FRAMING DEVICE used at the beginning of the story as an introduction to the story.

Record somebody telling a joke and identify the narrative structure that helps sequence the telling.

PRAGMATICS

This is David Crystal’s own theory and as an eminent linguistics expert, it is worthy of great note, because it makes such sound common sense.

This theory says that it is the CONTEXT and PURPOSE of people talking that dictates language use. Also, this theory takes into account the effect an utterance has on the listener and his/her response. Pragmatics ‘…studies the factors that govern our language in social interaction and the effect of our choice on others.’ (David Crystal).

This is closely connected with the idea of REGISTER (the degree of formality in lexis, structure, style) which is determined by:

  1. the social and status situation the speakers have with regard to one another
  2. their relationship and perhaps genders
  3. the topic of conversation

All of this is closely associated with POLITENESS STRATEGIES (SEE LATER).

CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

This theory focuses on the way society affects conversation; social interaction dictates the language and rules of that language use, rather than prescribed grammar. This theory investigates features of spoken language like:

TURN-TAKING; ADJACENCY PAIRS; SPEECH MARKERS; OPENINGS AND CLOSURES; PHARIC COMMUNION; TOPIC SHIFTS; TOPIC MANAGEMENT; SPEAKER CHANGES; TOPIC CHANGES; REPAIR SEQUENCES; CONVERSATIONAL INFERENCES; CONTEXTUALISATION CUES; SEQUENCING OF TURNS AND TURN TRANSITIONS; POLITENESS STRATEGIES; FACE SAVING DEVICES.

These are features of successful conversation; if certain rules are not followed, then conversation is not successful. It is suggested that men and women fail to understand one another sometimes because they follow different conversational rules and hence misunderstand one another.

Task 5

Think of a film where there may be social conversation between characters. Look at a part of the film and see if conversation analysis applies or, indeed, if any of the other theories do. Remember, that a scripted piece only has certain features of real-life conversation so you are listening to content in terms of social context, rather than trying to analyse the realism of the exchange.

All these theories are in ‘Investigating Talk’ pages 25-30. Really, speech acts are made up of a whole host of different factors, some explored in theoretical frameworks and some from no theories at all.

WHAT IS SPEECH?

Speech is bursts of meaningful sound, which is decoded by the listener. Speech lengths are best referred to as UTTERANCES rather than as sentences, although sentences, clauses, phrases, words can be structural features of utterances. Halliday calls language a ‘social semiotic’ – a system of signs and sounds used by human beings to communicate with each other.

All sorts of other forms of communication, which can be used to aid the speech process, often accompany speech:

  • PARALINGUISTIC FEATURES: body language, facial expressions, gestures, sounds that can contribute to the overall SEMANTICS (the MEANING) of words and utterances. Paralinguistic features depend upon context:

T: Did you like that meal?

S: Mmmm!

Included in these features can be PROXEMICS (communication by touch) and GAZE (eye contact)

  • SUPRASEGMENTAL FEATURES: these are features above the level of language and incorporate the PHONOLOGY (the study of the SOUND) of language, which is so important to the SEMANTICS (the meaning) of utterances. Phonology incorporates: INTONATION - rising tone for questions, exclamations, pauses, singing; STRESS patterns on words, those which are emphasised and which are not; PITCH, the degree of high or low tones in voice, for shouting, singing etc.
  • Some of these suprasegmental features are indicated by PUNCTUATION in writing, but the term ‘punctuation’ cannot be used to describe these items in speech, because the punctuation marks obviously cannot be seen, only heard. Consider the following, where intonation and word selection combine to provide the SEMANTIC interpretation:
  • That was clever, wasn’t it? (following a silly prank)
  • Call that a ‘car’? (looking at a decrepit junk heap)
  • That was a bit of all right, wasn’t it? (following a particularly successful game of football)

Where the true meaning is clearly NOT what has been said: thus IRONY or SARCASM, which is semantic nuance. This is a good example of a particular type of CONVERATIONAL IMPLICATURE (see earlier).

Task 6

Write a short script where paralinguistic and suprasegmantal features are used. How will you indicate them? Draw on your knowledge of script work to help.

WHY DO WE TALK?

There are a variety of reasons why we talk and M. A. K. Halliday lists seven functions in his TAXONOMY OF LANGUAGE (p140 in ‘English Language & Literature’ by Norman):

  1. INSTRUMENTAL: language used to get things done: to get what is needed
  2. REGULATORY: used to influence or control the actions of other people (teachers)
  3. INTERACTIONAL: used to sustain relationships with people
  4. PERSONAL: used to express yourself and personality (this manifests itself in an IDIOLECT, the unique and particular way an individual speaks, which includes pitch, accent, word choice, social status, role, education etc Think of Eddie Carbone’s idiolect in ‘A View from a Bridge.’ See later in ‘How we Talk’)
  5. HEURISTIC: used to find out about people and things
  6. IMAGINATIVE: used to explore the imagination
  7. REPRESENTATIONAL: used to pass on information

However, it may be more convenient to distinguish two functional categories:

  • Transactional spoken language (used to obtain services and goods)
  • Interactional/interpersonal (language used in social situations)

Whatever classification, there are numerous reasons why we talk, just as there are numerous reasons why we write.

Task 7

Make a list of all the different types of conversations you have in a day. Try to categorise them according to Halliday’s Taxonomy. Are there any that might fall outside his classification?

HOW WE TALK

This is governed by a whole host of factors, some of which have been outlined in the definition of IDIOLECT above, but to itemise a little more:

  • Gender, education, social status, status and/or role at the moment of talking (friend, colleague, employer/employee, manager, lover), context – environment and topic, why we are talking, etc. All these things, too, contribute to a person’s idiolect.

Task 8

Record a short conversation between you and your friends about an event at the weekend, an incident in the common room etc. Try to be as natural as possible and see if you can spot idiolectal features in each other’s spoken language.

THE ‘RULES’ OF TALK

Task8

Everybody in the group must take a piece of paper and every three lines or so write A & B to the end of the page:

A

B

A

B

Then as a group, decide on a situation where two people meet. Decide if they are friends, colleagues, strangers etc.

Now, everybody writes on his/her own piece of paper what A says, then pass the paper on to the next person who continues the conversation. Before you get to the bottom of the page, bring the conversation to an end. In pairs, read out the final dialogues.

(See page 144 of ‘English Language & Literature’ by R. Norman)

It will be possible to see from these that there are definite ‘rules’ that govern conversational exchanges, no matter whom they are between, if the conversations are to be successful. Naturally, academics have written theories about these, too! It stands to reason, though, that there are reasons why some conversations are successful, because some are not. We have all been in the company of the person who dominates the conversation, or who doesn’t listen, or who shows off, or who is rude and because they are ‘breaking the rules’, it follows that there must be rules to be broken.

Successful Conversation

Successful talk occurs when a whole host of maxims and politeness strategies are employed and work effectively; unsuccessful talk happens when somebody flouts these rules.

In 1975 H.P. Grice proposed four basic conversational MAXIMS as criteria for successful conversation:

  1. Be RELEVANT (maxim of RELEVANCE). Offer contributions which relate directly to what the previous speakers have been discussing.
  1. Be TRUTHFUL and have enough evidence for what you say (maxim of QUALITY). There is an assumption on the part of the speaker that s/he is telling the truth
  1. Speak APPROPRIATELY – don’t talk too much or too little (maxim of QUANTITY)
  1. Speak in a CLEAR, COHERENT, ORDERLY way ( maxim of MANNER)

CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE – when what is said is not really what is meant, because there is usually a deliberately implied message in the utterance – are inferences based upon the normal assumption that the maxims are being followed. Both parties accept this, because both participants understand the context and situation. Consider the following:

M: Have you seen Jim? (Meaning ‘where is Jim?’)

F: No (Fred understands the implication and directly answers that, rather than the literal meaning of the question, the answer to which would be ‘yes, of course I’ve seen Jim; I work with him.’)

J: Are you busy? (meaning, ‘can you do something for me?’)

D: Why? (D understands precisely why J has asked the question and wants to elicit exactly what it is J wants him to do.)

(see p37-8, ‘Investigating Talk’)

There are lots of common phrases in use that show speakers unconsciously subscribe to these theoretical maxims:

  • To cut a long story short
  • I know you’re not going to believe this…
  • I’ll spare you the grisly details
  • Correct me if I’m wrong, but…
  • I’m not saying we have to discuss this right now, but…

Politeness Needs

Respect for a conversationalist is essential if conversation is to be successful:

  • Maintain a social ‘distance’ from the other people in the conversation: this can be a physical distance, too. Different cultures have varying physical-distance factors. Here in Hong Kong we know all about that
  • Have respect for cultural and social status: don’t call the teacher by first name unless asked to do so, don’t swear in front of the Principal etc. This is the principle of REGISTER, where the appropriate language is chosen according to topic, status, situation.

People adjust their talk to the relative position they have with regard to what is being discussed and the person with whom they are talking. This is called FOOTING and is a sort of linguistic ‘stance’ adopted according to the position the speaker has.