Posted: December 20th, 2021

The Culture of American Smalltalk

Order Description

5 pages double-spaced times new roman, helvetica, or arial

separate references and title page

all sources should be scholarly articles/books

Beyond Grammar and Vocabulary: German and American Differences in Routine Formulae and Small Talk Author(s): Lana Rings Source: Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German , Vol. 27, No. 2 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 23-28 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Association of Teachers of German Stable URL: https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/jstor.org/stable/3530983 Accessed: 11-08-2016 06:22 UTC
REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/jstor.org/stable/3530983seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Association of Teachers of German, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.101 on Thu, 11 Aug 2016 06:22:10 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Beyond Grammar and Vocabulary: German and American Differences in Routine Formulae and Small Talk
Lana Rings University of Texas, Arlington
Introduction
In recent years the study of pragmatics, which attempts to account for language meaning and use, has led to the understanding that language strings are interpreted and used differently by people in different situations or subcultures. Human beings, although they may be speaking the same language, do not necessarily interpret that language in the same way and can misunderstand each other (e.g., Green, Blum-Kulka et al., Tannen). When people attempt to speak or understand a foreign language, miscommunication becomes that much more fea- sible. A case in point is the middle class American English usage of routine formulae such as “Hi, how are you” in service encounters (e.g., at the cashier at the supermarket), a convention widely used by U.S. Americans, and widely misunderstood by na- tive speakers of German, who do not use it with strangers. Applied linguistics has also recently seen the need for an understanding of pragmatics in the teaching and learning of foreign languages. Schol- arship in the teaching of German in the United States has produced some excellent articles which address this need (e.g., Lovik, Webber, Wildner- Bassett, Byrnes). Yet, the study of pragmatic uses of language often does not reach the textbook or the classroom even today. German students of English, and American students of German often come away from the classroom poorly equipped to understand the target language’s differing uses and interpreta- tions of specific language strings or specific situ- ations. As noted above, one of the important areas where (at least middle class) German and American English speakers have trouble understanding each
other is in the area of routine formulae. Where Americans might say, “Hi, how are you” “Nice meeting you,” or “Let’s get together sometime,” in order to appear polite and friendly, German speakers would not (Kotthoff 449-50). Another problem area is small talk. Where Americans might talk to a German speaker they have just met about some common ground, e.g., a friend or relative who knows someone or is from Germany, German speakers would be less likely to do so, unless they were interested in further contact with their interlocutor, or unless they were in spe- cific situations, such as in a compartment on a train. In fact, many Germans react negatively to the lan- guage many middle class Americans use with strangers or slight acquaintances. As will be shown, this is due to misunderstanding of Americans’ in- tentions in giving the verbal cues they do. If, when learning American English, Germans were only taught the American conventional interpretation of routine formulae and small talk, they would be spared many moments of anguish. Similarly, if American students understood how Germans might react to their verbal behavior, they could mod- ify it when speaking with Germans and also not be so disappointed when German speakers did not fulfill their expectations. In an effort to understand where Germans and Americans come into conflict because they do not understand the pragmatic value of certain language strings, a research project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) was undertaken to inter- view native speakers of German and American English regarding their reactions to the target cul- ture members’ verbal and nonverbal behavior. This paper reports on a portion of the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees), namely the reactions of twenty-two native speakers of Ger- man to routine formulae and American small talk.
23
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.101 on Thu, 11 Aug 2016 06:22:10 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
24 UP 27.2 (Fall 1994)
The Oral Interview Research Method
From 1990 to 1993 twenty-two native speak- ers of German who had spent time in the United States were interviewed regarding their reactions to U.S. Americans. Any native speaker of German who had spent time in the United States was an eligible interview candidate. All were living in Texas at the time they were interviewed. The interview- ees, seven males and fifteen females, ranged in age from 19 to 60. The majority of them (n=20) came from all parts of former West Germany; in addition, there was one from Switzerland and one from Sile- sia. Their length of stay in the United States ranged from seven weeks to thirty-three years. All had had some form of tertiary education, either in the United States or in their native German-speaking area. Each interview lasted from 45 minutes to one and one-half hours and was audiotaped with the interviewees’ consent. Most of the interviews with the native speakers of German were conducted in German and then translated by the interviewer. Only a few participants, mostly Germans who had been in the United States for a longer period of time, chose to be interviewed in English. Although all interviewees were living in the state of Texas, some had spent time in other parts of the United States as well. Since Texas was the place where they were most recently living, many of the reactions were in response to behaviors of Texas inhabitants as representative of American speakers of English. Needless to say, the interviewees were therefore reacting to the Texas (sub)culture, and indeed in some instances to Texas ways of talking, which may or may not be similar to ways of talking in other areas of the United States, where, for ex- ample, “Hi, how are you” might not be used as extensively. Each interview began with questions regarding personal background followed by a series of ques- tions designed to elicit interviewees’ impressions of the target culture and its inhabitants. In order not to rule out any topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service)s the interviewee might want to discuss (Grele), the interviewer began the second and major phase of the interview by asking open- ended questions such as: “Describe the American people. What are your impressions of Americans Tell me about Americans. How does it feel to be a German in the United States” Once the interview- ees began making statements regarding American behavior, they were then asked more specific ques- tions about their reactions, in order to ascertain in more detail the specific events that caused them to
have the reactions they did, as well as their reason- ing as to why they had such impressions. The latter was important in order to go beyond stereotypical responses and to uncover the particular events and behaviors that caused specific reactions in the ob- servers. (See also Byrnes 1986 for a discussion of how conversational style and ethnic stereotypes are linked.)
The Data
The problems that many German speakers have when they speak English with United States Americans are aptly described by the German speakers themselves. Since many of the speakers had similar points of view, representative excerpts are provided for each aspect of the problems the Germans had with Americans’ language.
1. Routine Formulae in American English and German Speakers’ Reactions
Routine formulae are expressions which have specific functions in certain kinds of situations, and include “such language as greeting, leave-taking,
. . . introducing, etc … .” which “are highly pre- dictable-in their use and meaning within a cul- ture” (my italics) (Coulmas 220). Examples include: “Hi, how are you” “You’re welcome,” “I’d like you to meet …,” “Bye, bye,” and “Have a nice day.” They are sometimes also called “gambits,” and in- clude, additionally, “Let’s get together sometime,” “It was nice meeting you,” “That’s a pretty blouse/dress,” or “It’s been nice talking to you,” the latter of which, for example, signals, “I want to leave the conversational group” (Keller 227). Between cultures, however, there is often a lack of equivalence (Coulmas). In American middle class culture “Hi, how are you” is used as a conversa- tional opener among strangers and as a question of caring among people who know each other. Ger- man speakers use the German equivalent of “Hi, how are you” most generally only in the latter situation. For the former they use a greeting such as Guten Tag, a sign of respect and politeness: “‘How are you’ wird immer und tiberall geiulfert und hat als Antwortpriiferenz ‘fine.’ ‘Wie geht’s’ wird geiiuflert, wenn man einen persbnlichen Gespriichseinstieg schaffen m6chte” (Kotthoff 449). When German speakers come to the United States, they are unaware of the American uses of
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.101 on Thu, 11 Aug 2016 06:22:10 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
RINGS: DIFFERENCES IN FORMULAE AND SMALL TALK 25
particular linguistic strings, as demonstrated by their reactions below. The following excerpt from an interview with a native speaker from Braunschweig is typical of German reaction to such routine formulae. Regard- ing “Hi, how are you” in the supermarket, Sara J., a 30-year-old who had been in the United States for five years at the time of the interview, had the following to say:
There are a lot of little things about shopping that have bothered me. …. At the cashier, … they ask you, “Hi, how are you” At the begin- ning I thought, “Why do they want to know that You don’t know them.” And you take it as you would in Germany: [that] “How are you” [means] they really want to know how you are. And at first I didn’t know how I was supposed to respond until I made it a point to listen to how others answered. And then I answered the same way. But at first I just look- ed at them stupidly. In Germany you don’t do that. You don’t say anything. You aren’t espe- cially friendly at the cashier’s, maybe at most Guten Tag and that’s it. Or nothing at all. If it’s a large supermarket, the cashiers are con- tinuously working, and they don’t even look at you, they just ring up the groceries, push them through, and that’s it. And then they say how much it all costs. You are used to it. The checkers are busy, you don’t want to bother them. Also, you are lost in your own thoughts, thinking about something else; and you have to bag your own groceries-you’re busy, too. In Germany your groceries aren’t bagged for you. You have to put them in your carrying basket yourself, or in whatever you have. So you’re busy yourself. You really can’t carry on a conversation.
Stefan B., 21, from Stuttgart, who had been in the United States just seven short weeks at the time of his interview, had a similar experience. Yet, his misunderstanding was of a somewhat different na- ture. Because he realized that the cashier was a young woman near his age, and because he found her attractive, he mistook her “Hi, how are you” for personal interest. Here is his description of the event:
The first day I went grocery shopping I was really surprised, because I was asked by the cashier, “How are you” I didn’t understand the use of the phrase, so I thought she was really interested in me. She was a beautiful girl who said, “How are you” So I went on, “Oh, my headache … and this tooth, you know. I’ve had a root canal problem.” (Laughs.) I told her everything, and she looked at me like (simula- tes expression of astonishment on his face).
Since then I’ve realized that all I have to say is “okay” or “fine” or something like that. But (laughs lightly) it’s really just funny. I wouldn’t have said that in Germany. It’s something American: “How are you I’m fine.” (Laughs)
“It was nice meeting you,” a harmony-seeking expression of leave-taking and farewell used among people who do not know each other well, is another American expression native speakers of German sometimes have difficulty understanding. (See also Kotthoff 450-51). Ina W., 43, who lived the first 23 years of her life in Hamburg, discusses the re- actions and frustrations of her German relatives who visit her in the United States:
In German you just say “Auf Wiedersehen.” You don’t say, “Oh, it was so nice meeting you.” That’s what Germans notice who come here, and they say, “What did she say” And I say, “She said it was nice meeting you.” [And they say,] “That’s strange.” Because they don’t say that in Germany. [They think,] “Why is she saying that to me I didn’t even say anything to her.” When you’re with several people, the people leave, and someone says, “Oh, it was nice meeting you.” And my mother would al- ways say, “I didn’t even talk to the woman. So why did she say that”
Finally, in some areas of the United States the expression “Let’s get together sometime,” or a vari- ant of it, is used toward the end of an interaction between people who do not necessarily consider themselves good friends, and signals good will at parting. Germans do not use it in this way. Instead, if they used a similar sentence, it would signify they were interested in pursuing a relationship, and the time frame would most likely be more specific. The reaction of Ursula S., although she is from Ger- man-speaking Switzerland, is typical of many of the Germans’:
[S]ometimes when you say goodbye, they say, “We ought to get together sometime.” The first time I heard that I took it seriously, but no more, because they don’t really want to get to- gether, or if they do, maybe in ten years. (Laughs.) Or they don’t know me the next time they see me.
Many interviewees reacted negatively to such routine formulae at first, not knowing what the ex- pected response was to such language. Wierz- bicka’s description of Eastern-European immi- grants’ reactions to English conversational routines as insincere is quite similar to those of the Germans
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.101 on Thu, 11 Aug 2016 06:22:10 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
26 UP 27.2 (Fall 1994)
interviewed here:
The perceived ‘insincerity’ of the ‘How are you’ routine consists both in the belief that the speaker doesn’t really want to know how the addressee feels and is expecting the ad- dressee to reply positively (‘Fine, thank you,’ ‘Very well, thank you,’ ‘Not too bad’) regard- less of how the addressee really feels. Conse- quently, common positive answers … are felt to be generally insincere, and the whole game is perceived as an exercise in shared insinceri- ty. (116)
In addition, she also states that “[t]he desire to have friendly relations with other people may lead one to say things which do not correspond to what one really feels and thinks” (120). Eight interviewees discussed “Hi, how are you” Only one of them did not have an initial negative reaction to the expression, due, she said, to the fact that her boyfriend had lived in the United States and explained the phenomenon to her. Three mentioned “It was nice meeting you,” and five mentioned “Let’s get together sometime.” Only one person did not react negatively to the latter two expressions, possibly due to her long so- journ in the United States (twenty years). Many interviewees came to understand the tar- get culture’s interpretation of the formulae, but not without experiencing embarrassment or frustration before they understood what was expected of them. Even after they understood what behavior was ex- pected of them, in twelve of sixteen instances, the native speakers did not react positively to such be- havior and still found it uncomfortable. Some had mixed feelings, finding what they perceived as American “friendliness” refreshing, on the one hand, but also finding it somewhat “superficial,” on the other. Seven found it acceptable after awhile. Only two stated they eventually appreciated its use.
2. Small Talk in American English and German Speakers’ Reactions
Another area in which native speakers of Ger- man had difficulty understanding American speak- ers’ intentions is small talk, or “conventional rou- tines.” The use of small talk in many regions of the United States seems to similarly fulfill the same per- ceived necessity of politeness in the American cul- ture. In fact, there are books written on the subject, encouraging people to increase their business pros-
pects by increasing their ability to do “small talk,” which is sometimes equated with “people skills” (Baber and Waymon 11). An American describes it thus:
I enjoy those short, little conversations I have with people I’m not likely to run into in my business or social life. I may talk with a neighbor’s mother-in-law or the owner of the Bed and Breakfast my family stayed at. I like the variety of people. I ask them about what they do. Often I learn something. I like to com- pliment them on what they do well. It enriches my life to appreciate them, to notice their uniqueness. (20)
German speakers, however, tended to have very different reactions to such small talk. Martine H. (age 30, from Aachen, in the U.S. for five years) discussed Americans’ small talk and conversing be- havior. Note that the concept of friend or friendship arose also, because she was not aware of the im- plications of the conversational behavior.
And I still think Americans are quicker to begin a conversation, that they are quicker to attempt to talk to someone or at least to ask these standard questions: “Where are you from” or “How do you like it” That’s a question that I’m often asked here in Texas, with the implicit expectation that I think it’s great. (Laughs.) Something that I can quite accurately evalu- ate [is that], on the one hand, I think it’s good that Americans establish contact so quickly. On the other hand, I’m still not clear as to what meaning it really has-how committed these contacts are. I like the first step, to be inter- ested in making contact. Very open in conver- sation, or getting right into conversations so quickly. It can be bothersome, too, when peo- ple with whom you don’t want to talk at all ask questions. Or they pester the living daylights out of you. On the other hand, I still don’t know how real these things are. I’m still not sure. It has happened to me more than once that people have carried on conversations with me for a whole day sometimes; or when I was still flying (as an airline stewardess), it was the case that you were confronted with new people so often. (That had to do with the job itself, too.) Sometimes they told me their whole life story. Sometimes passengers … or other colleagues. And three days later they didn’t remember a thing about it. And I’ve recently gotten out of the habit of looking at people directly, because when people want to talk with me intensively, I’ve gotten out of the habit of giving it much meaning. I no longer expect that a further con- versation will follow from an Intensive one. And I would expect that in Germany.
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.101 on Thu, 11 Aug 2016 06:22:10 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
RINGS: DIFFERENCES IN FORMULAE AND SMALL TALK 27
Two points in the above excerpt are crucial: the fact that the interviewee “no longer expects that a further conversation will follow from an intensive one,” signifies that she did at one time, and still would in Germany, and the fact that friendships follow from such discussions in Germany, and do not seem to in the United States. This seems for her a differentiation of friendship types in the United States and Germany. All but two of thirteen native speakers of Ger- man had similar initial reactions to American con- versational patterns with strangers or acquain- tances. After understanding the pattern somewhat better, five still have somewhat negative reactions, four are neutral, and two have positive feelings to- ward small talk.
Discussion
Any American who uses the routine formulae or small talk discussed above and does not develop a friendship with a person with whom he or she has conversed, will not consider his/her behavior untoward, but rather behavior that a friendly, polite person would exhibit to strangers or acquaintances. Such behavior is perceived by many Americans as necessary. They sometimes call it “friendliness” and are proud of their “friendly natures.” It results from a perceived need to avoid clashes and to maintain “smooth, well-greased, harmonious social interac- tion. Conventional expressions and conventional routines … provide the oil for such harmonious social interaction” (Wierzbicka 118). German speakers as a group, on the other hand, “value honesty and directness” in such en- counters (Hall and Hall 50). It maybe for this reason that they do not understand the American use of routine formulae and small talk with strangers. Thus, Americans often show “politeness” through behaviors and language they perceive as “friendliness.” Problems occur, however, when German speakers and Americans meet, for Ger- man speakers often interpret American “friendli- ness” behaviors as the beginning of deeper friend- ships, which the Americans may not be intending at all. Americans, even if unconsciously, tend to know these distinctions exist. They know when sim- ple “friendliness” is meant, and they know when a different relationship-a deeper, more enduring friendship is developing. Thus, when German- speaking interviewees talked about their first reac- tions to Americans’ statements like “Hi, how are
you” and “Let’s get together sometime,” which the German speakers took literally, they were quite disappointed when the Americans looked shocked at their detailed explanations about how they were or when they never did “get together” with them. Similarly, when the Americans engaged in conver- sations about themselves and their interests with the Germans, but after the event in which the con- versation had occurred, made no overtures toward friendship, the Germans were frustrated. It is quite evident that, first of all, the Americans did not know that the Germans would perceive their talk and intentions differently from the way they perceived them; and second, the Germans did not understand the culture- and situation-bound mean- ing of the use of such language. Conversely, Americans who do not understand German pragmatic behavior can interpret Ger- mans’ lack of use of such formulae as distance, aloofness, or even rudeness. If a supermarket clerk were not to say anything to many Americans upon reaching the cashier, it might be perceived as a problem, most probably as unfriendliness or im- polite behavior. In summary, then, behavior an American would perform which he or she would perceive as polite- ness, friendliness, and keeping encounters harmo- nious (routine formulae and small talk), a German might conversely interpret as superficiality and shal- lowness. On the other hand, behavior a German might interpret as respectful distance (no “Hi, how are you” or no talk at all), an American might interpret as aloofness or rudeness. The behavior of each group can, therefore, be interpreted as either positive or negative. Thus, all the instances of routine formulae and the small talk cited above are a matter of, in this case, culture-specific intention and interpretation. Since these verbal behaviors can be interpreted positively or negatively depending on the perceived meaning ascribed to the language, a person may be thought of disparagingly or approvingly, de- pending on the meaning ascribed to the language string by the listener. Paul M. (age 32, from Stuttgart, six years in the U.S.) seems to have reached an understanding of both cultures in this regard, having tolerance for each, by maintaining that Germans and Americans alike have deep relationships:
Sometimes Germans accuse Americans of being superficial and not being able to keep any real friendships. And at the beginning I
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.101 on Thu, 11 Aug 2016 06:22:10 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
28 UP 27.2 (Fall 1994)
thought that, too. But I think it’s because there’s a misunderstanding-that certain actions and certain behavior are interpreted wrong. Ameri- cans have a friendliness for everyone, and Americans speak to everyone in a certain friendly tone, and do certain behaviors, which we as Germans then interpret as a sign of friendship, and think, “Oh, that’s my friend,” and expect a lasting friendship. And then we’re disappointed when it doesn’t turn out to be a lasting friendship. And [it seems] the only reason that there could possibly be [for it] is that Americans are just shallow and superficial, because they can’t keep any friendships. But what is really the deeper reason, is that we misunderstand the signs and misinterpret the actions. It (friendliness) is a sign of general politeness that everyone deserves and not only a special group of friends. And I have deter- mined that Americans, exactly like Germans, have a certain group of friends with whom they have contact over a long period of time.
Implications for the German Language Classroom
As can be perceived from some of the German speakers’ reactions to misunderstandings in the American culture, a lack of pragmatic knowledge can cause serious negative emotional reactions to- ward members of a newly experienced culture. While many, perhaps most, people will experience culture shock no matter what, it is important to minimize such frustrating feelings as much as pos- sible. Understanding not only that people in the target culture will talk and act differently from the way people do in one’s own culture, but also un- derstanding the specific verbal and nonverbal be- haviors one may expect, as well as the meanings they often carry, should at least minimize a negative reaction generalized to all members of the target culture. One of the saddest and most detrimental outcomes resulting from misunderstanding the in- tentions of speakers of other languages or members of other cultures is that one may dismiss the whole population as crazy, stupid, insensitive, superficial or rude, or whatever it is that one feels. If a person can understand some of the probable difficulties, he or she may still become frustrated, but knowing the source of frustration should help in keeping a person cautious about generalizing. It is therefore incumbent upon us as foreign language teachers to help students learn that knowl- edge of traditional grammar and vocabulary is not enough to insure effective communication with na- tive speakers of German. The use of specific lan-
guage strings, aswell as their conventional meaning within the target culture should be taught students from the beginning. Little by little, as they come to understand that language meaning is not necessar- ily clear-cut, they will come to understand the im- portance of not judging a person by what he or she says, but by what he or she means, and that finding out what that meaning is may take some time. Such an understanding is invaluable to developing good working relations with Germans, or indeed with anyone who comes from a different background, even within the (United States) American culture.
Works Cited
Baber, Anne, and Lynne Waymon. Great Connections: Small Talk and Networking for Businesspeople. 2nd ed. Manassas Park, VA: Impact, 1992. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House, and Gabriele Kas- per. Cross-Cultural Pragrnmatics: Requests and Apolo- gies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1989. Bymes, Heidi. “Interactional Style in German and Ameri- can Conversations.” Text 6.2 (1986): 189-206. Coulmas, Florian. “On the Sociolinguistic Relevance of Routine Formulae,” in Journal of Pragmatics 3 (1979): 239-66. Frisch, Michael. A Shared Authority: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History. Albany: State University of New York, 1990. Green, Georgia M. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1989. Grele, Ronald J. Envelopes of Sound: The Art of Oral History. 2nd ed. Chicago: Precedent, 1985. Keller, Eric. “Gambits: Conversational Strategy Signals.” Journal of Pragmatics 3 (1979): 219-38. Kotthoff, Helga. “So nah und doch so fern.” Informa- tionen Deutsch als Fremdsprache 16.4 (1989): 448- 59. Lovik, Thomas A. “Geben Sie mir so ‘n Streuselapfel: Hedging in Authentic Speech Situations.” Die Unter- richtspraxis 23.2 (1990): 121-28. Tannen, Deborah. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cam- bridge: Cambridge UP, 1989. Webber, Mark J. “Intercultural Stereotypes and the Teach- ing of German.” Die Unterrichtspraxis 23.2 (1990): 132-41. Wierzbicka, Anna. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Se- mantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991. Wildner-Bassett, Mary E. “A Video Visit to the Land of Them: Commercials and Culture in the Classroom.” Die Unterrichtspraxis 23.1 (1990): 54-60.
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.101 on Thu, 11 Aug 2016 06:22:10 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

PROFILE 73 Vol. 13, No. 2, October 2011. ISSN 1657-0790. Bogot, Colombia. Pages 73-84
Dont Tell My Father: Important Lessons Learned Through EFL Classroom Small Talk
No le digan a mi padre: lecciones importantes aprendidas a travs de la comunin ftica en el saln de ingls como lengua extranjera
Gabriela Ayala Gonzlez* Miguel Adrin Leonel de Cervantes Orozco** Vctor Daniel Gonzlez Cabrera*** Faviola Romero Mayoral**** Gerrard Edwin Mugford Fowler***** Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico
All too often phatic communion is neglected in the English as a foreign language classroom or relegated to the level of formulaic language which merits little or no attention. In this article we argue that phatic communion plays an important role in establishing, developing and maintaining interpersonal rela- tionships between teacher and learners which can be seen in terms of solidarity and supportive- ness. Furthermore, small talk offers one of the few opportunities for students to engage in meaningful communicative interaction in the English as a foreign language classroom which is largely characterised by non-authentic language activities. Using classroom data, we attempt to show that teachers and students actively look for ways to enhance personal relationships as they boost the face of other interactants. Key words: English as a foreign language, interpersonal language, phatic communion. A menudo se descuida la comunin ftica en los salones donde se imparte el ingls como lengua extranjera o se baja al nivel de una frmula lingstica que merece poca o ninguna atencin. En este artculo sostenemos que la comunin ftica juega un papel importante al establecer, desarrollar y mantener las relaciones interpersonales entre maestro y alumno, lo cual puede ser visto en trminos de solidaridad y apoyo. Adems, la comunin ftica ofrece una de las pocas oportunidades para que los estudiantes participen de manera significativa en actividades de comunicacin en el aula de ingls como lengua extranjera, la cual se caracteriza por sus actividades no autnticas del lenguaje. Utilizamos la informacin del aula para mostrar que los maestros y alumnos buscan maneras de mantener una relacin personal mientras impulsan su imagen entre otros interactuantes.
Palabras clave: comunin ftica, ingls como lengua extranjera, lenguaje interpersonal.
* E-mail: gabiotilla@hotmail.com ** E-mail:malco_zero87@hotmail.com *** E-mail: elhakimefk@hotmail.com **** E-mail: faviola-01@hotmail.com ***** E-mail: gerrymugford@yahoo.com This article was received on January 20, 2011, and accepted on May 4, 2011.
74 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
Ayala Gonzlez, Cervantez Orozco, Gonzlez Cabrera, Romero Mayoral & Mugford Fowler
Introduction Small talk or phatic communion (Malinowski, 1923/1969) in the foreign-language (FL) classroom is all too often an unexploited propitious oppor – tunity to interact in the target language in mean- ingful ways. In contrast to the endless class hours spent presenting and practising non-authentic language in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom, student-generated small talk reflects motivated and authentic real-life language use and allows teachers to exploit learners interactive communication skills. Although fre- quently pres ented as formulaic and pre-patterned language, small talk is a common theme in ELT coursebooks. However, in the actual classroom, teachers miss the opportunity to take advantage of emerging small talk given the administrative pressures to follow the course programme and perhaps finish the book. Through collecting data in five contrasting teaching contexts in Mexico, this paper investigates how language learners engage in classroom small talk and how teachers respond to such interactional opportunities. Research begs the bigger question as to whether the FL classroom should reflect target-language small talk or local practices i.e. if language users should adhere to target-language norms of phatic communion or develop their own ways of engaging in small talk. After analysing the classroom data, we argue that EFL learner interaction should reflect genuine communication where FL interactants engage in meaningful lan guage use rather than mirror and second-guess target-language usage. In this article we begin by reviewing the concept of phatic communion and then highlight its relevance to the EFL classroom. After examining the nature and history of the concept, we maintain that it is closely linked to solidarity and support since phatic communion is used to develop, reinforce and maintain interpersonal relationships.
Subsequently, we specifically consider how phatic communion is related to face enhancement and gossip. After conducting and analysing classroom observations, we discuss how phatic communion can be encouraged in the classroom and what the factors working against it are. As a conclusion we argue that phatic communion is an important resource in encouraging meaningful interpersonal language use in the classroom.
Nature of Phatic Communion The origins of research on phatic communion can be traced to Malinowski who coined the term in the 1930s. A second era of research focused on discursive and situational approaches which led to our examining contemporary analyses in terms of rapport management and the interpersonal language use which has been the academic focus in this decade. First of all, however, we offer an example of phatic communion in the foreign- language learning context as a teacher interacts with students before the beginning of class. 1. Teacher: How was your day 2. Brenda: Bad. 3. Teacher: Wow! Youre very honest. Why 4. Diana: I have very busy day. 5. Alberto: Yeah, I always. 6. Benda: Its boring. 7. Teacher: Why boring 8. Estefan: A lot of work. (Extract 1)
In Extract 1, the teacher demonstrates concern for his students feelings and attempts to establish (or re-establish) a level of rapport. He is engaging in phatic communion. He is attempting to show supportiveness by trying to understand how his students feel. Phatic communion offers choices since, alternatively, he could have attempted to establish solidarity, or to use Astons term,
75
Dont Tell My Father: Important Lessons Learned…
PROFILE Vol. 13, No. 2, October 2011. ISSN 1657-0790. Bogot, Colombia. Pages 73-84
solidary routines (1988, p. 255) by sharing the same feelings. The term phatic communion was first pro- posed by Malinowski to describe a mode of action (1923, p. 296) during which interactants develop interpersonal relationships as ties of union are created by a mere exchange of words (1923, p. 315). Malinowski, however, gave little importance to the actual words echoed in phatic communion, claiming that words merely fulfil a solidary rather than a referential or reflective function. Whilst Malinowski pioneered the interactional dimension to language use, further work on phatic communion was limited until Laver revisited the concept and highlighted the social dimension of phatic communion especially in terms of how interactants may engage in exploratory talk at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of conversations. Far more than reflecting a mere exchange of words, Laver argues that phatic communion is also used to avoid silence and to prepare the way to engage in an initiatory function, in that it allows the participants to cooperate in getting the interaction comfortably under way […] (1975, p. 221). In other words, phatic communion prepares the way for language users to make the transition to transactional language use e.g. asking for or giving information. Stressing the social motivation behind phatic language use, Laver (1975) like Malinowski, underscored the formulaic dimension to small talk whilst downplaying the individual aspect of phatic communion. Taking a much more local approach to phatic communion, Coupland, Coupland and Robinson (1992) emphasise the negotiatory dimension of small talk. Critiquing Malinowskis and Lavers formulaic and patterned approaches to phatic communion, Coupland, Coupland and Robinson argue that small talk should be examined in terms of relational engagement (1992, p. 217) as language
users approach each interaction on an individual basis depending on what they want to achieve socially and relationally from the interaction as this very indeterminacy may be the hallmark of phatic communion and the key to its social utility (1992, p. 226). Further highlighting the importance of small talk, Coupland (2000b) has argued for the discoursal importance of small talk. In his introduction to a collected volume of papers on phatic communion, Small Talk (Coupland, 2000a), Coupland argues for the contextual analysis of phatic communion and the need to examine the relationship between form and function within those contexts, as is classically the case with discourse analysis (2000b, p. 22). Coupland also edited a special edition of the journal Research on Language and Social Interaction dedicated to examining phatic communion from a more conversation analysis perspective. The collection of the articles explores how small talk is achieved interactionally, turn by turn, and what this displays about small talk and its achievements for participants in situ (Coupland, 2003, p. 5). The study of phatic communion has therefore developed from seeing small talk as a nebulous exchange of words to situated language use. Current work focuses on small talk in terms of rapport management (Hernndez Lpez, 2008; Spencer-Oatey, 2008) and the personal dimension to phatic communion (Placencia, 2004). In this paper, we adopt the definition of phatic talk as local interactional language use aimed at establishing, developing and maintaining a given interpersonal relationship. In particular, we examine the solidary dimension of small talk. Rather than seeing phatic communion in generalised social terms (Malinowski, 1923; Laver, 1975) or discoursal and situational approaches (Coupland, Coupland and Robinson, 1992; Coupland, 2000a, 2000b), we examine small talk in interpersonal terms as
76 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
Ayala Gonzlez, Cervantez Orozco, Gonzlez Cabrera, Romero Mayoral & Mugford Fowler
interactants construct or even fail to construct phatic talk within a specific localised context. Dynamic and not always purely formulaic, phatic communion reflects deliberate and often tentative attempts to establish, develop and maintain rela- tionships. Exploratory and hesitant talk may be even more underscored in the foreign-language classroom when teachers and students attempt to establish, develop and maintain their interpersonal relationship in the target language.
Phatic Communion and Solidarity Whilst agreeing with Malinowskis assertion that phatic communion reflects solidary talk, we argue that the actual words do matter because the phatic actions do not produce automatic and predictable results. Furthermore, solidarity needs to be understood in terms of how it is expressed. In phatic communion, interaction can convey solidarity by matching the feelings of another interactant, or what Aston (1989) terms supportiveness, e.g. 1. Teacher: Did you bring your umbrella today 2. Pedro: No. 3. Alicia: Yes, do you like it It has flowers. 4. Teacher: Yeah, it is really beautiful. Personally, I dont like the rainy days. Do you like the rainy days. 5. Pablo: Only when I am in my house. (Laughs) 6. Students: (Laugh) 7. Teacher: What about you guys 8. Sergio: Yes. 9. Ivan: Yes, only when I am in my bed sleeping. 10. Teacher: (Laughs) Yeah or when you are not around Plaza del Sol where there is a big river. (Extract 2)
The common thread of laughter (lines 5, 6 and 10) and joking (e.g. line 9) reflects solidary talk as the interactants share common perceptions
and feelings regarding rainy weather since they have all gone through the same experience. Furthermore, we would argue that the words do matter as interactants engage in speech acts (e.g. the compliment in line 4: Yeah, it is really beautiful) and creative language use (e.g. line 9: …when I am in my bed sleeping). At the same time, interaction can involve doing phatic communion rather than just expressing commonly-felt experiences. For instance, in the following extract: 1. Teacher: Really, what do you want to study 2. Carlos: Im going to study controlador aereo [air traffic controller] 3. Teacher: Air traffic controller Its great. Actually, my father wanted me to study that, because he works in the airport. This job is a great. Responsibility right 4. Carlos: Yeah! (Extract 3)
Carlos has just told the teacher that he is learning English in order to pursue a second career. After saying that he wants to be an air traffic controller, the teacher reveals through self-disclosure that his father also wanted him to pursue the same career. Self-disclosure between interactants establishes common ground as interactants engage in phatic communion. Given Carloss enthusiastic answer, the interactants are in a stronger position to create what Malinowski calls ties of union. Self-disclosure plays an important part in how interactants want to present themselves to other interactants as Wardhaugh argues: You must present yourself in a conversation, and part of that pres entation is the way you choose to display yourself to others and how you view your relationship with the rest of the world. In fact, every encounter with another person requires you to come to a decision about how you want to appear in that encounter, that is, how you wish to present yourself to the other or others. (1985, pp. 26-27)
77
Dont Tell My Father: Important Lessons Learned…
PROFILE Vol. 13, No. 2, October 2011. ISSN 1657-0790. Bogot, Colombia. Pages 73-84
When engaging in phatic talk, FL users need to decide how they want to come across. Therefore, words employed in phatic communion are important.
Face-boosting Solidary talk can go much further than expressing or doing phatic communion. Interac- tants can also engage in face enhancing acts where they attempt to boost the face of other interactants. The term face is taken from Goffman (1967) who argues that participants present a face when they are interacting in a conversation. Goffman argues that participants will claim a positive social value for themselves in any particular contact (1967, p. 5). Face is not fixed and stable as House argues: Face can be likened to a persons public self-esteem or self-image, which can be damaged, maintained or enhanced in interaction with other others (1998, p. 57). Face is only on loan (Goffman, 1967, p. 10) during a given interaction and other interactants can take, augment and decrease another partici- pants face. A decrease can lead to a loss of face or a face-threatening act (Brown and Levinson, 1987) whilst an increase can lead to intimacy enhancement (Aston, 1989), face-boosting acts (Bayraktaroglu, 1991, 2001), face enhancement (Sifianou, 1995) and rapport enhancement (Spencer-Oatey, 2008). Face enhancement becomes an important factor in non-formulaic phatic communion i.e. small talk that aims to develop meaningful interpersonal relationships. An example of the face boosting can be seen in the following example: 1. Teacher: Hey, Dave, your team won, right 6-0 2. David: Yes, teacher. 3. Teacher: How much time did you play 4. David: The complete game. 5. Teacher: Oh, really Thats great. (Extract 4)
The teachers opening question is designed to make David feel good as he respects his English- language name and has done his homework by finding out that Davids team won the game. He then congratulates David on playing for the whole game. Face boosting acts run the risk of sounding formulaic but in this case the teacher appears to take a real interest in the student.
Phatic Communion and Gossip Whilst often maligned as mean-spirited and malicious talk, gossip has attracted the attention of discourse analysts and sociolinguists because it reflects the nature and strength of interpersonal relationships. For instance, Eggins and Slade (1997, p. 283) have identified two key social functions of gossip: 1) to establish and reinforce group membership; 2) as a form of social control. Since it involves talking negatively about a third party not present in the conversation, gossip provides a means of exploring similarity and shared values as it draws boundaries between a we and a they; it forges ties that bind a group together (Eggins & Slade, 1997, p. 283). At the same time, gossip exerts social control since it is a way of asserting collective values and increasing group cohesion, and it also enables the group to control the behaviour of its members (Eggins & Slade, 1997, p. 283). In the following example of phatic communion, students are gossiping with the teacher about their school: 1. Teacher: Hey, how are you 2. Maria: Not so good. 3. Teacher: Why Whats the matter 4. Maria: Can you believe they want us to go to school on Sunday 5. Teacher: Really Why What did you do 6. Maria: Just because the school is going to be evaluated! 7. Teacher: Thats too bad, but hey! Such is life. (Extract 5)
78 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
Ayala Gonzlez, Cervantez Orozco, Gonzlez Cabrera, Romero Mayoral & Mugford Fowler
Maria is talking negatively about a third party i.e. her school authorities which she claims are making students go to school on Sunday (line 4) in order to be certified (line 6). The teacher appears to side with the student by expressing his sympathy (line 7).
Research Structure This research project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) took place over a period of six months as four Mexican teachers recorded conversations that reflected interactional language use during their EFL classes in five private language institutions. Generally lasting 40 hours, the courses ranged from basic to advanced levels with an average of eight students in each class, which lasted, on average, 120 minutes. The four teachers two males and two females are between 22 and 26 years old and are completing their final year on a BA programme in TEFL. They are advanced level English-language speakers who will soon be presenting their TOEFL examination where they are expected to achieve 600+ points. So as not to deliberately or even inadvertently engage in phatic communion for the purposes of this study, the teachers were not informed about the overarching research question guiding this study which is: How do teachers and students engage in phatic communion in the EFL classroom However, when they had collected the neces- sary data they were fully integrated into the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) and asked for their comments and insights.
Research Methodology The teachers were initially asked to write down instances of classroom small talk, which took place at the beginning and the end of class. They recorded the conversations through a recon- structed dialogue technique i.e. the teachers wrote down the instances of phatic communion at an opportune moment as soon as possible after the
interaction. Reconstructed dialogue was chosen since overt recording would have been too intrusive and could have stifled the spontaneity of classroom small talk. All the participants involved in the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) were asked to sign consent forms authorising the use of the classroom data. To protect the participants identity, pseudonyms have been used throughout this paper.
Findings Phatic communion is used by both teachers and students to develop and reinforce solidarity in the EFL context. Often it will involve self-disclosure as seen in the following extract: 1. Teacher: Good morning, Blanca. How are you 2. Blanca: Sleepy, I went to bed at 1:00. 3. Teacher: What were you doing so late 4. Blanca: Dont tell my father, but I was watching a movie. 5. Teacher: OK. (Extract 6)
Whilst the small talk commences in a formulaic way with a greeting i.e. Good morning, Blanca. How are you (line 1), there is a non-standard response: Sleepy, I went to bed at 1:00. (line 2). Blancas follow-up comment in line 4, Dont tell my father, but I was watching a movie, reveals a degree of trust and closeness as she explains why she stayed up late. Therefore the phatic communion aims to shorten distance through self-disclosure and gossip as Blanca asks the teacher to hide the information from her father, who obviously does not approve of his daughter staying up late. With the OK (line 5), the teacher appears to collude with Blanca. Phatic communion may also involve shared feelings as interactants experience the same feelings as seen in the following extract when the students and the teacher talk about studying on Saturday mornings:
79
Dont Tell My Father: Important Lessons Learned…
PROFILE Vol. 13, No. 2, October 2011. ISSN 1657-0790. Bogot, Colombia. Pages 73-84
1. Teacher: Hi! Good morning! 2. Students: Hi, teacher! 3. Teacher: How are you 4. Marco: Fine, teacher! 5. Moiss: Yo tengo mucho sueo, teacher! [I am really tired] 6. Teacher: Yes, I know I know it is difficult sometimes to wake up on 7. Saturdays but today we will have a great class! But first, why 8. dont you tell me what did you do during the week 9. Esteban: Me! I had 3 exams, and 2 project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s! 10. Teacher: And did you get good grades (Extract 7)
Once again, small talk starts off with formulaic greetings (lines 1, 2, 3 and 4). However, Moiss reveals his true feelings by saying in Spanish that he is sleepy: Yo tengo mucho sueo, teacher! (line 5), By answering in Spanish, Moiss seems to be appealing to teachers first language and thereby attempting to create a degree of solidarity. The teacher picks up on this commonly-felt feeling and answers in English with Yes, I know I know it is difficult sometimes to wake up on Saturdays (lines 6 and 7) and tries to respond to the students by offering to give a great class (line 7). Phatic communion is not being used in formulaic ways but rather to talk about student motivation and how to get the class going. Students will often use phatic communion to develop the relationship with the teacher inside and outside of the classroom. In the following extract, a student attempts to find out about the teachers private life: While the teacher is waiting for students to finish an exercise, Clarissa, a student, grabbed the teachers cell phone. 1. Clarissa: Shes your girl, teacher 2. Teacher: Yes, but you shouldnt look at my stuff. (Clarissa stares at the picture) 3. Clarissa: Sorry Y cunto llevan [For how long] 4. Teacher: Ha ha ha ha, two months and counting.
5. Clarissa: Neta Its serious [Really] 6. Teacher: Yes, the only serious relationship Ive had. 7. Clarissa: oh! ta chido. [thats cool] 8. Teacher: Thanks, I know. Now FOCUS! (Extract 8)
Clarissa asks personal questions about the teachers girl-friend (line 1) by using an affirmative grammatical structure and appears to be seeking out gossip about the girl-friend. The teacher mildly admonishes Clarissa as he engages in self- disclosure by revealing how long they have been going out two months and counting (line 4) and revealing that this is the only serious relationship Ive had (line 6). Clarissa engages in face-boosting by saying in Spanish ta chido (thats cool) (line 7). The teacher accepts the compliment in line 8 and asks Clarissa to concentrate on her work. Student interest in their teachers was a common feature of small talk as revealed in the following interaction that took place as the teacher was trying to take attendance. 1. Teacher: Fine, guys! 2. Elena: Teacher How old are you 3. Teacher: Im 24 years, why 4. Elena: Because you have a ring in your finger! Are you going to get marry 5. Teacher: Jajaja. Yes! 6. Sandra: When, teacher 7. Teacher: On March! 8. Adriana: Teacher Y nos vas a invitar [And are you going to invite us] 9. Teacher: Jajaja, I am not sure Maybe. Jajaja This is a strange situation for me. I think it is better if we start the class (Extract 9)
Once again small talk is far from formulaic and mainly takes place in English as students express an interest in knowing more about their teacher e.g. How old are you (line 2) and Are you going to
80 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
Ayala Gonzlez, Cervantez Orozco, Gonzlez Cabrera, Romero Mayoral & Mugford Fowler
get marry (lines 4 and 5). After engaging in self- disclosure by revealing her age (line 3) and when she is going to get married (line 8), the teacher feels embarrassed by the level of intimacy and assumes her role as a teacher and tells the students that they should begin the lesson (lines 10-11). Student interest in their teachers did not solely focus on their personal relationships outside the classroom. In the following extract, students are interested in where the teacher works. The student came across the teacher after his class and starts a conversation. 1. Roberto: Teacher! How are you 2. Teacher: Im fine, thank you. How about you 3. Roberto: Im great. [Here there was a moment of silence as Roberto signed some school papers] 4. Roberto: Teacher, do you work (Teacher stares at Roberto) 5. Roberto: I mean, besides here. 6. Teacher: Yeah, I work on Saturdays in another school. 7. Roberto: Oh! Thats why you never come on Saturdays 8. Teacher: Exactly, thats why. (Extract 10)
The small talk reflects a genuine interest by Roberto in the teacher. Whilst the small talk starts off with the formulaic How are you Im fine, thank you. How about you Im great (lines 13), it quickly becomes potentially face-threatening i.e. acts that intrinsically threaten face (Brown and Levinson 1987, p. 60), when Roberto asks Teacher, do you work (line 4). In a remedial interchange (Goffman 1971), Roberto self-corrects with I mean, besides here (line 5). The phatic communion is now back on track with Yeah, I work on Saturdays in another school (line 7).
Phatic Communion and Face Enhancement Face enhancement reflects a personal dimen- sion to phatic communion and is a common feature
of student-student and teacher-student talk. Its use further reinforces the argument that small talk does not have to be predictable and formulaic. In the following extract, the students express their appreciation of their classmates and therefore develop another dimension to solidarity. 1. Teacher: Good morning, Alejandra. How are you 2. Alejandra: Good morning, teacher, I am very happy because Berta is coming 3. Today. 4. Teacher: I am glad! 5. Alejandra: Glad 6. Teacher: I am happy too. 7. Carla: May I come in please 8. Teacher: Good morning, Carla; come in. 9. Naylea and Paula: Can we come in 10. Teacher: Good morning, girls! Come in. 11. Alejandra: Berta, I am happy to see you! 12. Berta: Me too, te traje unas pulseras. [I brought you some bracelets] (Extract 11).
The conversation begins with formulaic greet- ings followed by self-disclosure as Alejandra reveals that she is happy since she expects her friend, Berta, to come to class today. The teacher makes a supportive move by saying that she is glad although it is not clear whether she is happy because Alejandra is happy or because Berta is coming to class. When Berta does finally arrive, Alejandra greets her with a Face Boosting Act (FBA): Berta, I am happy to see you! (line 11). Berta responds to the FBA with Me too (line 12) and subsequently code-switches to Spanish. The code- switch may have further signalled closeness and solidarity. It should also be noted that the teacher uses the phatic communion to introduce the word glad as a synonym for happy (lines 4-6) without specifically teaching the word. In the following extract, the teacher engages in face boosting as he jokingly talks to the students
81
Dont Tell My Father: Important Lessons Learned…
PROFILE Vol. 13, No. 2, October 2011. ISSN 1657-0790. Bogot, Colombia. Pages 73-84
about an upcoming examination. The small talk reflects intersentential code-switching as the teacher speaks in English and the students talk in Spanish: 1. Rodrigo: Est difcil el examen, teacher [Is the exam difficult] 2. Teacher: No, I dont think so. You are very intelligent. I think it is easy for you! 3. Ricardo: Really 4. Teacher: Yes! 5. Alberto: Nos vas a pasar las respuestas, teacher [Are you going to give us the answers] 6. Teacher: No! Jajaja, I am going to take attendance, jajaja. 7. Ricardo: Nos deja ver el examen mientras toma la asistencia [Can you let us look at the exam whilst you are doing the attendance] 8. Teacher: Of course not!!! Jajajaja. Relax, guys, everything is going to be ok! (Extract 12)
The conversation starts off with Rodrigo asking whether the examination is going to be difficult. The teacher appears to give an honest answer No, I dont think so (line 2) and then engages in face boosting: You are very intelligent. I think it is easy for you! (line 2). Then the students switch to Spanish to engage in language play as they ask the teacher whether he is going to give them the answers or at least look at the examination (lines 7 and 8). The teacher appears to make no effort to force the students to speak in English which raises the question as to whether small-talk has to be completely in the target-language or can reflect interaction in two languages.
Discussion Phatic communion inside and outside the EFL classroom reflects both formulaic and inventive language use as both teachers and students employ a range of discursive resources to establish, develop, maintain interpersonal relationships which can be seen in terms of solidarity and supportiveness.
A key resource is self-disclosure (extracts 6-10), which enables teachers and students to step out of their fixed classroom roles and come across in more individualistic ways. Such a strategy is important for foreign-language learners so that they can develop personal rather than anonymous relation- ships in the target-language i.e. they can participate as a somebody rather than as an anybody (Aston, 1989; Sacks, 1970 – 1971; Schenkein, 1978). Self-disclosure can develop into supportiveness i.e. understanding how the other feels e.g. com- plimenting the teacher on his girlfriend (extract 8) or into solidarity i.e. having undergone the same experience as other interactants e.g. feeling sleepy (extract 7). However, small talk can go wrong as seen in extract 9 when the teacher feels uncomfortable being asked about her wedding plans or in extract 10 when the teacher is asked whether he works. The incidences offer opportunities for students to deal with unsuccessful small talk. In extract 9, the teacher ended the small talk but in extract 10 the student demonstrated the ability to rephrase his request. Face enhancement was a commonly employed strategy, which reflects local language use since it is a common feature of Mexican Spanish. Extracts 11 and 12 indicate that face-enhancement is used by both teachers and learners. Since face-enhancement is not particularly characteristic of target-language usage in the United States and the United Kingdom, teachers are faced with the pedagogical choice regarding whether students should be using EFL small talk to engage in meaningful relationships or whether they should mimic target-language practices.
Encouraging Phatic Communion Given that classroom data in this study have recorded the widespread use of phatic communion, we argue that teachers should provide the necessary opportunities to develop and work on
82 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
Ayala Gonzlez, Cervantez Orozco, Gonzlez Cabrera, Romero Mayoral & Mugford Fowler
phatic talk and practices. The kind of predictable, formulaic patterns of small talk are dealt with in most EFL textbooks. However, the personal and unpredictable nature of small talk cannot be tackled solely through textbook exercises and needs to be developed, rehearsed and practised in a classroom context. Whilst learners cannot be taught phatic communion, they can be given opportunities to examine its features and how resources are used in terms of skills-getting as opposed to skills-use (Rivers & Temperley, 1978, p. 4). Skills-getting activities provide learners with the opportunity to practise different features of communication in a classroom setting. With respect to phatic communion, learners can be given the chance to examine supportiveness, solidarity, self-disclosure and gossip. Skills-use means using phatic know- ledge in a communicative context. Skills-getting can be developed either through deconstruction or construction activities (Aston, 1989). Deconstruction activities invite students to notice and analyse how target-language users employ resources to achieve communicative aims whilst construction activities encourage FL users to use resources to achieve interactional objectives. Noticing is a key aspect of developing interactional ability in the target-language. Batstone (1994, 1996) argues that noticing gives learners the opportunity to consciously attend to language input and structure it so that it becomes part of the students language intake and is ready for future use. Deconstruction activities can be used to examine how target-language users achieve sup- portiveness and solidarity and engage in gossip. Easily accessible TL language instances of phatic talk can be found by inviting learners to watch such sitcom shows as Two and a Half Men, TheBig Bang Theory and The New Adventures of Old Christine to examine how the leading characters show
concern and interest with each other as they share experiences or talk behind each others backs. Construction activities can help learners to develop, for instance, self-disclosure and face- boosting. For example, icebreakers and warm-ups can be used to encourage learners to reveal aspects about themselves that enable them to come across as individuals. For instance, students may be asked to write up three revealing statements about themselves, one of which is not true, and in a probing and personal question-and-answer session his/her classmates have to establish which statement is wrong. With regards to face-boosting, learners can be asked to write down three qualities they like about a classmate and then design a role- play into which they incorporate the FBAs.
Discouraging Phatic Communion Whilst we have argued that phatic communion is a common feature of classroom interaction, it is often discouraged by administrators, coordinators and teacher trainers. Phatic communion is often considered wasteful because 1) it detracts from the transactional nature of the classroom e.g. learning grammar, communicative functions; 2)it undermines the importance of timing which is considered to be an essential feature of a successful and balanced class; 3) it potentially undercuts teachers efforts to complete the programme on schedule; and 4) phatic communion is best obser- ved and learnt in the target-language environment. Whilst such arguments reflect the reality of classroom teaching and learning, we argue that phatic communion should be given its place (and perhaps time slot) in the syllabus as it reflects authentic language use and may improve students ability to participate in unplanned spontaneous discourse which must be a key factor in devel- oping communicative competence. With regard to learning and practising phatic communion in the
83
Dont Tell My Father: Important Lessons Learned…
PROFILE Vol. 13, No. 2, October 2011. ISSN 1657-0790. Bogot, Colombia. Pages 73-84
TL context, Mexican learners often use English for work e.g., in the computer and tourism sectors, and need to interact with other non-native speakers and therefore may never have the opportunity to practise phatic communion in the TL environment.
Conclusions In this paper, we have argued that teachers need to be aware of the learning opportunities afforded to their students by phatic communion. To pursue this argument, we reviewed the concept of phatic communion arguing that it is more than just a mere exchange of words as Malinowski (1923, p. 315) would suggest. We then examined how phatic communion as spontaneous and unplanned talk is a feature of the foreign-language classroom as learners use phatic language to express support or solidarity, to engage in face enhancement, and to participate in gossip. Such findings reveal meaningful interpersonal language use. For many students, classroom phatic communion may be one of the few opportunities they have to engage in authentic language. Therefore, we would argue that teachers need to know how to exploit opportunities for engaging in phatic communion and help learners develop their linguistic competence with regards to small talk.
References Aston, G. (1988). Learning comity: An approach to the description and pedagogy of interaction speech, Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna. Aston, G. (1989). Learning comity: An approach to the description and pedagogy of interaction speech. PhD Dis- sertation, Institute of Education, University of London. Batstone, R. (1994). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Batstone, R. (1996). Noticing. ELT Journal, 50(3), 273. Bayraktaroglu, A. (1991). Politeness and interactional imbalance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 92, 5-34.
Bayraktaroglu, A. (2001). Advice-giving in Turkish: Supe- riority or solidarity In A. Bayraktaroglu & M. Sifianou, (Eds.). Linguistic politeness across bound aries: The case of Greek and Turkish (pp. 177-208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coupland, J. (Ed.) (2000a). Small talk. Harlow. Essex: Pearson. Coupland, J. (2000b). Introduction: sociolinguistic per- spectives on small talk. In J. Coupland (Ed.). Small talk (pp. 1-25). Harlow, Essex: Pearson. Coupland, J. (2003). Small talk: Social functions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(1), 1-6. Coupland, J., Coupland N. & Robinson J. D. (1992). How are you Negotiating phatic communion. Language in Society, 21, 207-230. Eggins, S., & Slade D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on facetoface behaviour. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York, NY: Basic Books. Hernndez Lpez, M. (2008). Rapport management under examination in the context of medical consultations in Spain and Britain. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21, 69-98. House, J. (1998). Politeness and translation. In L. Hickey (Ed.). The pragmatics of translation (pp. 54-71). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Laver, J. (1975). Communicative functions of phatic com- munion. In A. Kendon, R.M. Harris & M. R. Key (Eds.), Organization of Behaviour in FacetoFace Inter action (pp. 215-238). The Hague: Mouton. Malinowski, B. (1923 / 1969). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C.K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.) (1949). The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence upon thought and of the science of symbolism (pp. 296-336). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. Placencia, M. E. (2004). Rapport-building in corner shop interactions. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(2), 215-245.
84 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
Ayala Gonzlez, Cervantez Orozco, Gonzlez Cabrera, Romero Mayoral & Mugford Fowler
Rivers, W., & Temperley M. (1978). A practical guide to the teaching of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sacks, H. (1970 – 1971). On Being Ordinary. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (1984), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 413-429) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schenkein, J. (1978). Identity negotiations in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organisation of conversational interaction (pp. 57-78). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Sifianou, M. (1995). Do we need to be silent to be extremely polite Silence and FTAs. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 95-110. Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.) (2008). Culturally Speaking: Man aging rapport through talk across culture. London: Continuum. Wardhaugh, R. (1985). How Conversation Works. Oxford: Blackwell.
About the Authors Gabriela Ayala Gonzlez is a Mexican student who is finishing a BA in Teaching English as a Foreign Language at the University of Guadalajara. She is also an EFL teacher with experience of teaching teenagers and children in private and public schools. Her current investigation interests include sociolinguistics and classroom interaction. Adrin Leonel de Cervantes Orozco is a Mexican EFL teacher with experience of teaching adults, teenagers and children. He is currently completing his BA in Teaching English as a Foreign Language at the Universidad de Guadalajara. His current interests include sociolinguistics, language program management and teaching English as a second language. Vctor Gonzlez Cabrera is a Mexican EFL teacher with experience of teaching adults, teenagers and children. He is currently completing his BA in Teaching English as a Foreign Language at the Universidad de Guadalajara. His current research interests include sociolinguistics and teaching English as a second language. Faviola Romero Mayoral is a Mexican EFL teacher with experience of teaching children, teenagers and adults. She is currently completing her BA in teaching English as a Foreign Language at the Universidad de Guadalajara. Her research interests include research and teaching. Gerrard Mugford Fowler works at la Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico, and holds a PhD from the Institute of Education, University of London. His current research interests include critical pedagogy, interpersonal language use and linguistic politeness and impoliteness.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: #1 Assignment Help Online Service for Students in the USA, AI Plagiarism free essay writing tool, Australian best tutors, best trans tutors, buy essay uk