A Comparative Analysis of a Casual Conversation and a Formal Interview
INTRODUCTION
In the following paper, I provide a comparative analysis of a casual conversation and a formal interview based on an approach to ethnography of communication as discussed by Saville-Troike (1997). After a brief review of related studies of these two communicative event types, I present the focus and the framework of the current study. Next, I present a comparative analysis of the two communicative events using the 11 components of communication compiled by Saville-Troike, followed by a summary and discussion of some of the findings of the analysis.
I selected these two communicative event types due to their inherent differences with one another based on contrasts such as formal/ informal, structured/ unstructured, and prepared/ spontaneous. In addition, these communicative events can be readily identified as such because of their clear boundaries. The inherent contrasts that exist coupled with the boundedness of the two communicative events help facilitate a comparative analysis. I chose the participants of these communicative events due to our association with one another as office-mates in the Department of SLS. Because of our close interaction with one another on a regular basis, we are members of the same micro-culture. Therefore, I am in an advantageous position to understand and explain these communication events in which I acted as participant observer. I recorded both communication events using a small, handheld tape recorded to assist with my analysis. Immediately afterwards, I wrote brief notes about my observations of the events, then I listened to the tapes to find likely sections to transcribe and analyze. I have provided transcriptions of sections of each of the events in the appendix following this report. REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES Much has been written about informal conversations and formal interviews from the sociolinguistic perspective. In a review of the literature, I found a number of studies that focus on different aspects of conversational style. Of the studies I located that focus on interviews, many of them seem to be set in the context of the work environment in some way. I will briefly discuss several data-based studies of each of these two communicative event types in terms of the different focus, approach, and findings of each study. Tannen’s (1984) detailed analysis of a multi-participant conversation provides a great deal of insight into conversational style. Tannan attended, recorded, and transcribed two and a half hours of conversation during a Thanksgiving dinner at her friend’s house. Drawing from work by both Gumperz and Lakoff, she then analyzed her data focusing on a broad range of speech acts, from questions, to stories, to jokes, and style features, such as paralinguistic features, pacing, and repetition, among others. Afterwards, Tannen interviewed the original participants to ask questions about their intended meanings, their reactions, and what they were thinking during the event. Her many findings are included in her book based on her research. In their 1995 study of English grammatical features, Carter and McCarthy examined a corpus of data from naturally …show more content…
Using Saville-Troike’s (1997) compiled list of components of communication, I first will conduct a comparative ethnographic analysis of my two communicative events. I will focus my comparison initially on similarities and differences that may be found between components of the two events, then I will examine each event to see how individual components may influence one another. If patterns emerge that show similar relationships between components in both events, then this is where I will focus my …show more content…
Communicative event #1 is a casual lunchtime conversation, and as such has many features associated with spontaneous talk among friends. In contrast, communicative event #2 is a formal structured interview with its own set of distinct features. Differences between the features of these two communication event styles become more apparent as the comparative analysis of their components continues.
The participants in these two communication events are all friends as well as colleagues in management positions. I sat in communication event #1 as a participant (S) but only observed in communication event #2. The other two participants, Zoe (Z) and Alice (A), maintained very similar roles in these two events, with Z basically telling her story and A responding and asking questions. Both A and Z are European-American (E-A), middle-class females, 26 and 30 years old respectively. I am the only male of the three participants, also E-A, from a working class background, and the oldest at 35 years
INTRODUCTION
In the following paper, I provide a comparative analysis of a casual conversation and a formal interview based on an approach to ethnography of communication as discussed by Saville-Troike (1997). After a brief review of related studies of these two communicative event types, I present the focus and the framework of the current study. Next, I present a comparative analysis of the two communicative events using the 11 components of communication compiled by Saville-Troike, followed by a summary and discussion of some of the findings of the analysis.
I selected these two communicative event types due to their inherent differences with one another based on contrasts such as formal/ informal, structured/ unstructured, and prepared/ spontaneous. In addition, these communicative events can be readily identified as such because of their clear boundaries. The inherent contrasts that exist coupled with the boundedness of the two communicative events help facilitate a comparative analysis. I chose the participants of these communicative events due to our association with one another as office-mates in the Department of SLS. Because of our close interaction with one another on a regular basis, we are members of the same micro-culture. Therefore, I am in an advantageous position to understand and explain these communication events in which I acted as participant observer. I recorded both communication events using a small, handheld tape recorded to assist with my analysis. Immediately afterwards, I wrote brief notes about my observations of the events, then I listened to the tapes to find likely sections to transcribe and analyze. I have provided transcriptions of sections of each of the events in the appendix following this report. REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES Much has been written about informal conversations and formal interviews from the sociolinguistic perspective. In a review of the literature, I found a number of studies that focus on different aspects of conversational style. Of the studies I located that focus on interviews, many of them seem to be set in the context of the work environment in some way. I will briefly discuss several data-based studies of each of these two communicative event types in terms of the different focus, approach, and findings of each study. Tannen’s (1984) detailed analysis of a multi-participant conversation provides a great deal of insight into conversational style. Tannan attended, recorded, and transcribed two and a half hours of conversation during a Thanksgiving dinner at her friend’s house. Drawing from work by both Gumperz and Lakoff, she then analyzed her data focusing on a broad range of speech acts, from questions, to stories, to jokes, and style features, such as paralinguistic features, pacing, and repetition, among others. Afterwards, Tannen interviewed the original participants to ask questions about their intended meanings, their reactions, and what they were thinking during the event. Her many findings are included in her book based on her research. In their 1995 study of English grammatical features, Carter and McCarthy examined a corpus of data from naturally …show more content…
Using Saville-Troike’s (1997) compiled list of components of communication, I first will conduct a comparative ethnographic analysis of my two communicative events. I will focus my comparison initially on similarities and differences that may be found between components of the two events, then I will examine each event to see how individual components may influence one another. If patterns emerge that show similar relationships between components in both events, then this is where I will focus my …show more content…
Communicative event #1 is a casual lunchtime conversation, and as such has many features associated with spontaneous talk among friends. In contrast, communicative event #2 is a formal structured interview with its own set of distinct features. Differences between the features of these two communication event styles become more apparent as the comparative analysis of their components continues.
The participants in these two communication events are all friends as well as colleagues in management positions. I sat in communication event #1 as a participant (S) but only observed in communication event #2. The other two participants, Zoe (Z) and Alice (A), maintained very similar roles in these two events, with Z basically telling her story and A responding and asking questions. Both A and Z are European-American (E-A), middle-class females, 26 and 30 years old respectively. I am the only male of the three participants, also E-A, from a working class background, and the oldest at 35 years