Last year on my way home via train, a
friend and I encountered a man who was creepily taking pictures of us and other
women in the train carriage with his mobile phone. As we both felt quite
uncomfortable with the situation we decided to pay a visit to the train guard
and find out what we could do about the whole super creepy situation. Once we
were let in the guard’s compartment, the guard asked us a lot of questions in
regard to the man’s actions, which carriage we were in, and our own personal details, such as name,
address and phone number.
My friend and I did not question the actions of the guard
because we recognised that his position of authority allowed for such a pattern
of talk, and that the pattern of talk was used to accomplish certain tasks
(Benwell & Stokoe 2002). The guard questioning us also reflected an example
of a standardised communication situation (Coulmas 1981, p2) whereby we
answered in an almost automatic fashion. Essentially as an authority figure
questioned us, we knew to provide them with the best answers we could. The information collected was then able to be
used to notify other Cityrail officials and security staff to attempt to
resolve the very uncomfortable situation.
Reflecting on the event, when first approaching the guard’s
compartment, we recognised, in a similar fashion to the way that Schegloff
(1986) proposes that a mutual understanding of features of an interaction may develop,
that the interaction that we may have with them could take a reasonable amount
of time and that the conversation would primarily consist of my friend and I
recounting our experience whilst the guard collected relevant information.
 |
| I couldn't actually find a relevant, yet funny picture or .gif, so here's some dancing Nigel Thornberrys... |
Benwell, B and Stokoe, E 2002, “Constructing discussion tasks in
university tutorials: shifting dynamics and identities”, Discourse Studies, vol.4, no. 4, pp429-453, accessed 11/10/2012, http://dis.sagepub.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/content/4/4/429.full.pdf+html
Coulmas, F 1981, Conversational
Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned
Speech, Walter de Gruyter, The Netherlands, accessed 15/10/2012, http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8iHl-HOlhhQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Conversational+routine:+Explorations+in+standardized+communication+situations+and+prepatterned+speech&ots=sRM1WkSRiJ&sig=yG3ksOL_nTQ0KYmrMvp04yWDLac#v=onepage&q=Conversational%20routine%3A%20Explorations%20in%20standardized%20communication%20situations%20and%20prepatterned%20speech&f=false
Schegloff, E A 1986, “The routine as achievement”, Human Studies, vol.9, no.2/3, pp111-151,
accessed 15/10/2012, http://ey9ff7jb6l.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The+Routine+as+Achievement&rft.jtitle=Human+Studies&rft.au=Schegloff%2C+Emanuel+A&rft.date=1986-01-01&rft.pub=Springer&rft.issn=0163-8548&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=2/3&rft.spage=111&rft.epage=151&rft.externalDocID=10_2307_20008964
Hey Caitlin, this is a really interesting (and somewhat unfortunate) example of talk in institutional settings! A lot of what Andrew talked about in the lecture was based on more tangible institutions such as fast food service, emergency calls etc. In this instance, it seems that the institution was 'train guards'. As such the institution was basically just the person in authority. It's also interesting to note that despite probably minimal interactions with train guards you knew exactly how to efficiently interact with him to achieve the desired result. Whilst the institution of 'train guards' is probably fairly small compared to other social institutions, the way in which institutional talk can be generalised into some basic categories; interaction with authorities, service interactions etc. Great example!
ReplyDeleteAlso, the dancing Thornberry's are fantastic!
ReplyDeleteCaitlin,
ReplyDeleteIt is a shame that you had such a horrible situation confronting you on this day and so brave of you to seek help for this matter.
Your interaction with the train guard is a prime example of the different discourses that are associated with interactions in varying institutions. These discourses vary due to the social order that is associated with talk. Given this, it can be understood that there are certain expectations and assumptions associated with talk in different institutions as the 'institutionality of talk is presupposed from the outset'. So, even though you had not been in the situation of interaction before, you knew what to suspect and given that, even if it was only a train guard, the association with authority presupposed how you were supposed to talk/act.
whoops forgot to add the reference, excuse me, my brain is moosh at the moment.
ReplyDeleteRapley, M (2001). 'How to Analyze Talk in Institutional Settings: A Casebook of Methodology, Ethnomethodology and Applied Conversational Analysis, Continuum, London, pp206-214.
This reminds me of talk in specific institutions being structured. There is a goal oriented approach to the talk.
ReplyDeleteI imagine when you went up to the guard you 1. opened - by telling him your problem. 2. made a request - can you do something about this. 3. he began an interrogative sequence - all those questions he asked you were goal oriented to complete the request. Also, it showed his professional dominance in the situation. 4. response - he might have told you what he was going to do or what you should do (return to a different carriage etc) and 5. closing - he would have left, or you.
You highlighted yourself that there was a definite asymmetry of knowledge about how to conduct the affair efficiently. Still, great example of how rigorous and consistent institutional talk can be
Ash