Everyday Spoken English is ‘Formless and Unstructured’
Language has been a part of each nation enabling people to communicate systematically through sounds and conventional symbols. It embodies our cultural identity and heritage and makes it possible for us to reach out to others, express our diverse ideas, build interpersonal relations, shape our thoughts, explore our customs and construct laws. In giving light to the claim that everyday spoken English is ‘formless and unstructured’ the relationship between and among language, culture, and past and shared experiences and activities were analyzed using the informal conversation between Pip and Phyllis to illustrate the characteristics and function of everyday spoken English by highlighting the evident structures of informal talk along with the excerpts from the transcribed conversation between the couple to present examples of why everyday spoken English appear ‘formless and unstructured’.
Dimensions, Systems and Functions of Language
According to (1978) communicative competence includes both knowledge for and ability for language use. (1980), and (1986) state that there are four dimensions of communicative competency: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence. One of the most important aspects of the communicative approach of language is that it pays systematic attention to functional as well as structural aspects of language (1981). However, some old customs have to be transformed and people adapt to these changes and learn other practices, including the language they speak. Thus, a linguistic repertoire is created wherein a set of language varieties is demonstrated in the speaking and writing patterns of a certain speech community.
(1999) claimed that “language takes meanings from the context in which it is used and in spoken language, the distinctions between language and context, and language and culture begin to blur” (p. 5). Linguists normally describe informal conversation as disorderly due to the inexplicit use of language, randomness of the topics discussed, lack of structure and ‘errors’ compared to formal language. These make everyday talk appear hesitant, ambiguous, and full of half-finished sentences and interruptions (1999). The framework developed by (1973, 1975) explains the seemingly formless and unstructured language by identifying the functions and purposes of language use relative to the social context and cultural environment.
Halliday’s framework highlights the social and cultural use of language as it adapts to the demands of the society making it multi-functional. He presented seven functions of language as the following: (1) instrumental, (2) regulatory, (3) interactional, (4) personal, (5) imaginative, (6) heuristic, and (7) informative. The instrumental use of language is evident when it is used to get things done and satisfy needs, its regulatory use is evident when language functions as a means of control or authority over other’s behaviors, the interactional function is used to form or maintain social relationships, language’s personal use could be a way to express emotions and thoughts, its imaginative function is relevant when creative expressions are illustrated while its heuristic function highlights knowledge-seeking use of language and its informative function can be illustrated when informing others (1996).
Pip and Phyllis who have been married for 46 years were asked to fill out an evaluation form for the tour company they traveled with during their holiday break in Rome. Examples of Halliday’s functions of language can be illustrated using the conversation between Pip and Phyllis.
· instrumental
Phyllis: [mm] [Yes…] Well if you read the letter / I think the girl that greeted us at the airport / We should / She should have mentioned it / If you look at the letter again / But she was chattering with somebody. Most likely / She had the leaflet because it was company / I saw the coaches (…)
Pip: mm… A leaflet like the one…
Phyllis: Yes. Her company and she didn’t. I think that was a mistake.
· regulatory
Phyllis: Let’s start our self with, uhmm …
Pip: Let’s start our self with the resort / I don’t call Rome a resort. But still that’s what it says, resort.
· interactional
Pip: Uhmm… One thing that bothered me a bit / The question of putting towels.
Phyllis: Yes, it was a bit dirty, wasn’t it?
Pip: [Yes.]
Phyllis: It was awful in a way.
· personal
Phyllis: [Well the flight was excellent.]
Pip: What d’ you say on the flights? The flight was excellent. I mean British Airways is not your favorite flight / compared with what we have recounted.
· imaginative
Phyllis: The room was nice.
Pip: It wasn’t a very big room.
· heuristic
Pip: You either have to book early on without knowing a great deal about ‘em. Or else when you get there you couldn’t book. That is practical to us. Well …
Phyllis: it’s a different company. I think the one we went with was a much bigger company and it was more chaotic. We were in Paris that time. We have to struggle ourselves. No. I think that was great.
· informative
Phyllis: ‘Cause it seems quite small.
Pip: [Yes.]
Phyllis: A bit noisy. But ...
Phyllis: ‘Cause I have my earplugs. So that was okay.
Using the transcribed conversation between the couple it would seem that their everyday conversation appears chaotic and unstructured. But this only goes to show that their shared experiences and cultural orientation enabled them to come up with conversational skills and techniques that they alone understand as a couple which may seem vague to other people who might participate in their talk. The long years that they have been together enabled them engaged in collaborative conversations which illustrate their great deal of shared background knowledge. As such, the incoherent aspect of informal talk, of everyday spoken English in particular illustrates the cultural and social connectiveness between people along with the different uses of language as a social and cultural tool.
Structure of Informal Language
Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) explained that instances of interruption characterize collaborative activity between individuals during conversations. These are evident in everyday spoken language because informal conversations arise spontaneously out of fluid and changing everyday activities and relationships (1999). Informal conversation includes (a) any unfinished phrases or clauses; (b) one speaker cutting on the other jut before a transition relevance point; (c) duetting or both speaking together or collaborating to complete a phrase; (d) back-channel support or short agreements like ‘yes’ and ‘mm’; and (e) imprecise or implicit references which rely on their shared experience for understanding ().
(1983) identified five types of interruptions which include (1) smooth speaker-speech, (2) simple interruption, (3) overlap, (4) butting-in interruption, and (5) silent interruption. Meanwhile,(1975) classified interruption instances of simultaneous speech that began before the word immediately preceding a transition-relevance place in the speaker’s utterance while overlaps began at a transition-relevance place or immediately preceding the word highlighting their claims on indicators of conversational dominance. Nonetheless, the couple has been very effective in illustrating the features of collaborative conversation as characterized by several unfinished phrases and clauses, one speaker cutting the other, duetting as well as back-channel support and imprecise or inexplicit references while filling out the assessment form. Examples include the following excerpts:
· unfinished phrases and clauses
1. Phyllis: Let’s start our self with, uhmm …
Pip: Let’s start our self with the resort / I don’t call Rome a resort. But still that’s what it says, resort.
· one speaker cutting on the other
1. Pip: mm… A leaflet like the one…
Phyllis: Yes. Her company and she didn’t. I think that was a mistake.
Pip: [Yes.] [mm…] [Yes.]
· duetting
1. Phyllis: It’s the 27th of April / number of nights / four.
Pip: [Right. April / number of nights / four.] Departure (…) Right. These are the categories: excellent, very good, good, fair, poor.
Phyllis: [Well the flight was excellent.]
· back-channel support
1. Phyllis: Well, it was very good. The receptionist was terribly helpful.
Pip: [Yes, they were.]
2. Pip: Uhmm… One thing that bothered me a bit / The question of putting towels.
Phyllis: Yes, it was a bit dirty, wasn’t it?
Pip: [Yes.]
Phyllis: It was awful in a way.
· Imprecise or inexplicit reference which rely on shared experience
1. Phyllis: it’s a different company. I think the one we went with was a much bigger company and it was more chaotic. We were in Paris that time. We have to struggle ourselves. No. I think that was great.
2. Phyllis: [mm] [Yes…] Well if you read the letter / I think the girl that greeted us at the airport / We should / She should have mentioned it / If you look at the letter again / But she was chattering with somebody. Most likely / She had the leaflet because it was company / I saw the coaches (…)
From these excerpts, it is evident that the couple who engage in informal everyday talk illustrate the ‘formless and unstructured’ everyday spoken English; ‘formless and unstructured’ in the sense that their shared knowledge and cultural orientation as well as shared activities in the past were able to supply them information that necessitated relatively comprehensive exchange of words.
Gender Differences in Language
Researches on gender and discourse argue that males and females grow up in different cultural environments and develop different habits for signaling their intentions and understandings since they learn their styles of talking in sex-separate peer groups (1990; 1982). Hence, men and women develop different norms for establishing and displaying conversational involvement which account for the differing conversational patterns and mutual negative evaluations as a result of cross-gender interactions ( 1996). The first chapter of the Audiovisual Notes also claimed that men most often than not control conversations that involve male and female participants by introducing topics for discussion as well as through minimal conversational support.
In the recorded conversation, Pip was the one filling out the evaluation form initiating questions that directed the discussion and formed the structure of the conversation. However, analyzing the transcript and flow of conversation between Pip and Phyllis, it was evident that Phyllis was able to portray more in control of the discussion by taking the lead and elaborating the topics introduced by Pip. During the conversation, it can be observed that Phyllis was able to share more information and was also able to air interruptions to insist her assessment on things being discussed.
English in Hong Kong
English, being the universal language has been the focus of a lot of researches in the field of linguistics. They are particularly interested on how English is being transformed as well as used in other social settings particularly in communities that use other languages as the primary mode of speech. Taking the perspective of Hong Kong conversational language, (1999) highlighted the importance of understanding social and cultural norms in the region for a foreign person to adapt easily to the lifestyle and social environment of the locales. They pointed out the role of newspapers and its circulation in the community which defines and distinguishes literate individuals and common characterization of the Hong Kong people. They argued the relevant connection and interrelatedness between and among the concepts of writing, reading, comprehension, literacy that facilitate the effective and efficient function of language.
Moreover, (1995) investigated the changing use of the English language during job interviews in Hong Kong. They explained why and how job interviews in Hong Kong at present do not necessarily require facilitating the interviews purely in English which was the norm before the 1970’s. They identified the different levels of English language comprehension between interview panel members who are composed of English-speaking foreigners as well as Hong Kong local associates. They were able to show how on certain localities, the practical use of language is valued more than the formal aspects of conversing and structure of English as a language. This study highly illustrated the relative conceptualization of formal English language use and supports the paper’s argument that a everyday spoken English only appear formless and unstructured because of the shared knowledge between individuals that supply for the language gaps that characterize informal conversation.
Conclusion
As was evident in the discussion, the claim that everyday spoken English language is ‘formless and unstructured’ only applies to the informal talk if the evaluation of such common language use is based on the rigid rules of syntax and grammar of formal English speech. The ‘formless and unstructured’ structure of informal conversation is only a result of the confounding and overlapping interplay of social relationships and shared cultural background and orientation of the individuals involved. The universality of the English language resulted to different and differing use of the said language relative to the context of the people using it. Whatever the case maybe, informal talk or conversational English has form and structure that serves the effective and efficient communication to its users in each and respective of the socio-environmental context and setting they are in.
Transcript of the Conversation
Pip: Well, it’s so often that one has to complain.
Phyllis: [That’s right.]
Pip: ‘Bout a holiday that (…) makes a change / that we can say / well / with how we enjoyed it (…)
Phyllis: Let’s start our self with, uhmm …
Pip: Let’s start our self with the resort / I don’t call Rome a resort. But still that’s what it says, resort.
Phyllis: [Well, it can / yes.]
Pip: (…) visiting until that and the language (…) I can’t remember that. You’ll have to remember that.
Phyllis: It’s the 27th of April / number of nights / four.
Pip: [Right. April / number of nights / four.] Departure (…) Right. These are the categories: excellent, very good, good, fair, poor.
Phyllis: [Well the flight was excellent.]
Pip: What d’ you say on the flights? The flight was excellent. I mean British Airways is not your favorite flight / compared with what we have recounted.
Phyllis: [British Airways.] [Yeah, it wasn’t.]
Pip: Yeah, it was very good. Excellent.
Phyllis: [Yeah, it was good. We give them extra.]
Pip: Ferry or rail / we didn’t have (…)
Phyllis: Hotel.
Pip: Hotel Solis.
Phyllis: Well, it was very good. The receptionist was terribly helpful.
Pip: [Yes, they were.]
Phyllis: The room was nice.
Pip: It wasn’t a very big room.
Phyllis: No. I put excellent for services and room, good.
Pip: Very good? Good?
Phyllis: [Good.} Good.
Pip: [Yeah.]
Phyllis: ‘Cause it seems quite small.
Pip: [Yes.]
Phyllis: A bit noisy. But ...
Pip: mm
Phyllis: ‘Cause I have my earplugs. So that was okay. The departure airport…
Pip: Uhmm… One thing that bothered me a bit / The question of putting towels.
Phyllis: Yes, it was a bit dirty, wasn’t it?
Pip: [Yes.]
Phyllis: It was awful in a way.
Pip: You either have to book early on without knowing a great deal about ‘em. Or else when you get there you couldn’t book. That is practical to us. Well …
Phyllis: it’s a different company. I think the one we went with was a much bigger company and it was more chaotic. We were in Paris that time. We have to struggle ourselves. No. I think that was great.
Pip: Well, that’s right.
Phyllis: Yeah. I think that was. It was very, very successful.
Pip: mm… So in the past you said something ‘bout the towels and we / (…) would have like more information about…
Phyllis: [mm] [Yes…] Well if you read the letter / I think the girl that greeted us at the airport / We should / She should have mentioned it / If you look at the letter again / But she was chattering with somebody. Most likely / She had the leaflet because it was company / I saw the coaches (…)
Pip: mm… A leaflet like the one…
Phyllis: Yes. Her company and she didn’t. I think that was a mistake.
Pip: [Yes.] [mm…] [Yes.]
Phyllis: But otherwise, I thought she was great.
0 comments:
Post a Comment