and directs an explanation toward Cathy, who has heard the story already. Phyllis goes into her harrowing plane ride and then contrasts her fear of small planes to when she was younger, and brave enough to go on the biggest roller coasters. She refers to an amusement park that Cathy is familiar with, both being from the same part of the country. The exchange illustrates the affinity between the two women. Phyllis then says she couldn't ride those roller coasters anymore. Mark then teases her with, "you're grown up and mature now". The role and pair types listed previously are illustrated by the exchange.

4. Contextualizing Relationship and Setting

One is constantly interacting with others, verbally and/or non-verbally, and always in a definite setting, which itself determines the type of interaction. The behavior evidenced by the dinner talk is a segment of such an interaction - illustrating a type of conversation brought into being by the particular cultural norms and the particular relationships between the participants in the setting. These particular behavior patterns, however, also imply and all other possible exchanges, or talk in general Be being aware of the mechanics of one conversation, one may apply this understanding to all exchanges in the course of one's daily round". In this case, in looking at the role type which I displayed during the conversation, I can see the manipulative effects of the setting and of others: role types. For instance, retreating from an argument on a subject I feel strongly about was influenced partly by not wanting to "make waves". That is, pursuing the argument appeared inappropriate in the setting of a "wedding celebration" That represented a submissiveness to the setting. Although we must follow cultural norms. we must find a counterpoint between our standardized social life and our standardized mental life (sound familiar ? ) which will afford us freedom to sneak honestly in whatever the setting.

Talk is affected by the physical context of the setting in the way the par tic 1t)ants are ass ambled, i.e., sitting on the floor , students sitting behind desks, as well as the way the speaker is placed in relation to the audience. People sitting cross legged on the floor can obviously have an informal conversation, may talk in loud voices, and not feel a great gap both in distance and authority between speaker and audience. In a classroom situation, this is not the case.

Historical context may be shown by two strangers sitting together in a crowded bus -- they may talk, but most likely wouldn't bare their souls to each other, not having any previous history of relationship, and standardized imaginings to draw from.

Ambient context may determine how open a person may be in the standardized setting. "Good vibes" cause a per son to feel comfortable and perhaps less role conscious. There's a great interaction between physical and ambient context of setting.

Parents have a great deal of manipulative control through the subtle variations in their talk, i.e., tone of voice, facial and offer gestures, plus a vast store of historical data of their child to draw from. Both overt and covert coercion is used.

Teachers must rely on overt coercion in a less personalized setting. At times, they must carry on long dialogues with themselves, facing a sea of blank faces. Many teachers can sense the mood or ambience and thereby present the lecture in the best way to grab the students' attention. Their external dialogue may stimulate the students' internal dialogues.

Favorite characters of mine gene rally speak as freely as possible, without being intimidated within their standardized settings.

Thedifference between oral talk and written discourse is one that can be understood by experiencing that difference (i.e., making a tape!) In looking at the dinner talk transcript many irregularities and seeming incongruities appear both in structure and context of the talk. Nonetheless, it was all quite clear when it actually occurred. An unspoken, shared, stream of ideas seems to provide continuity to verbal utterances which may appear as disjointed fragments. Where these fragments are placed (sequence and argument patterns), who speaks them and to whom (relationship), and where, why and how they are spoken (setting) allows the listener to understand what might baffle the reader. Oral talk is a dynamic activity; written discourse is a static system.

Go to Dr. James' Page Return to My Homepage Go to my Psy409 Homepage E-mail me!