An Ethnography of Communication
Speakers make choices as to the
language they use based on class,
gender, race etc. the context of
the speech event, the topic of
discussion, and their goals.
Ethnography of Communication
To understand the choices people make we need to know
The cultural rules for appropriate interaction - What should and should
not be said in particular contexts
Information about the speakers - class, gender, race etc.
explicit and implicit norms for communication detailing aspects of
verbal, non-verbal and social parameters of interaction
Code used by speakers
Setting or context of the speech event
Form or genre (e.g. conversation, folktale, chant, debate)
Topics
Attitudes
The goals of the speakers
The function of the speech event – what are the goals of the speakers
 cultural messages of shared values and expectations and
presuppositions
We use these guidelines to shape our own behaviour and to evaluate
the actions of others
Formal Speech Events
formal speech acts often take place in specified settings, among
expected participants and concern relatively fixed topics
Formal settings often have a structural design that separates various
categories of participants and orients them in relation to one another
e.g. courts room proceedings
 Participants speech behaviour
is conditioned by their role.
 judge controls communication
 others have obligations to
speak and others not to speak
 specific discourse patterns are
expected of each type of
participant
 lawyers ask questions and
make opening and closing
remarks, witness answer
questions
topics are rigidly defined
all speech behaviour must
be relevant to the issue
rights of participants to
introduce or change topics
are narrowly defined and
limited and controlled by the
judge
Goals vary depending on
roles
Speakers choose words, tone of voice facial expression, gesture etc
to accomplish this purpose
e.g. the judge must appear impartial, lawyers speak and act
aggressively, defendants portray themselves as innocent, witnesses
appear honest and reliable, and jurors remain silent but convey
interest in the speech and behaviour of others
Boardroom meeting
What are the design elements that
structure the setting.
Who are the participants and
what are their roles.
How do the roles of participants
condition their speech behaviour?
What are the rights of participants
to speak
What are the specific discourse
patterns for each type of
participant ?
What are the topics of
conversation and how are they
controlled?
What are the goals various
speakers.
Semi formal
What are the design elements
that structure the setting.
Who are the participants and
what are their roles.
How do the roles of participants
condition their speech
behaviour?
What are the rights of
participants to speak
What are the specific discourse
patterns for each type of
participant ?
What are the topics of
conversation and how are they
controlled?
What are the goals various
speakers.
Informal Interactions
not as highly structured but are constrained by cultural norms of roles, rights to speak and
ways of speaking
Rules are often followed unconsciously
We assume behaviour in these contexts is natural – but is culturally conditioned
Reactions by individuals to ongoing behaviour e.g. showing either approval or disapproval
indicate cultural norms
We generally become most aware of informal communicative norms when they are violated,
i.e. when someone speaks inappropriately
Then we can evaluate the mistake against our culturally shared models of appropriate
behaviour
Speakers errors come from misjudging the relative importance of given components within
speech events – that is misjudging the weight of settings, participants, topics, and goals in
framing one’s speech style. Choice of words or non-verbal cues
Settings
 settings help define events as particular kinds of occasions
 In so doing they invoke certain behaviours both physically,
socially, and linguistically
 at the same time restrict others
 Settings can be classified on a continuum of formality or
informality
Settings
Formal Settings
 increased structuring
 Choices made are consistent from one event to the next
 There is an emphasis on roles of participants
 They have a central focus or theme
 tend to focus on specific issues and happenings
 reflected in constraints on topics and in restrictions on speakers rights to
change or introduce elements
Settings
 increased structuring of formal events is reflected in rules of etiquette that
influence participants attire, demeanour and speech.
 Markers of formality may include features of pronunciation, intonation,
facial expression, grammar and vocabulary, with tendencies to use more
prestigeful or correct speech and to appear serious
rights and participants to speak may be curtailed or directed into certain
kinds of exchanges and turn-takings
Settings
 People make choices consistent with the seriousness appropriate to the occasion.
 People rarely make jokes, tease or swear in highly formal situations, although
depending on the setting these themselves may be structured and bound by rules
 Formal settings define people by their positional and public rather than their
personal identities
 By invoking such public roles, social distance rather than intimacy is stressed –
formal forms of address often used
Settings
 People make choices consistent with the seriousness appropriate to the occasion.
 People rarely make jokes, tease or swear in highly formal situations, although
depending on the setting these themselves may be structured and bound by rules
 Formal settings define people by their positional and public rather than their
personal identities
 By invoking such public roles, social distance rather than intimacy is stressed –
formal forms of address often used
as members of a particular society, we share expectations about how proceedings
begin and end
informal settings
 settings and activities that occur
in them may be bounded
physically, spatially and socially
 norms of communicative
behaviour more diffuse and
flexible
 although participants always
assess speech and non-verbal
actions according to cultural
models of appropriateness.
 Speakers select stylistic features
of pronunciation, grammar and
vocabulary based on their
individual habits and preferences
rather than on dictates of the
situation
informal settings
Topics are different on
different occasions
 Topics dependent upon
speakers’ interests and goals
social boundaries might
include specific participants
and topics considered
appropriate
Regardless of setting
communication needs to be
negotiated and developed
people learn how to begin
and end particular kinds of
interactions following
normative patterns
Participants
Include speakers,
addressees and audience
Roles usually change during
a given event
Even the audience may
have a communicative role
to play by making the
appropriate responses
People make choices about
language used based on
characteristics of other
participants in a speech
event
Participants
Such choices include aspects
of linguistics and nonverbal
behaviour
Pronunciation:
distinctiveness of articulation
Prosodic features of
intonation: velocity (speed of
speaking), volume (loudness,
softness)
Syntax: complexity or
simplicity of word order,
phrase construction etc.
Choice of words
Non-verbal cues: facial
expression, eye contact,
touch, physical distancing
Speakers determine, usually unconsciously,
which communicative features are most
appropriate given the person(s) to whom
they are speaking to
We speak differently to a priest, child,
person whose first language is not English
Choice of topic also depends on speakers
awareness of cultural and individual
expectations
What do you talk to friends, acquaintances
about - what topics are avoided?
turn taking, topic
development, signals of
listenership are attuned to
specific relationships
between speakers
employers speaking with
employees are more likely to
take longer turns, to control
topics and to exert power
through interruption than are
workers when speaking to
their employers
Terms of Address
How we refer to people or address them is a sensitive indicator of
how we evaluate co-participants in a speech event
We can use personal names, titles, kinship terms, or personal
pronouns
 Most frequently used forms are
• First name, (FN)
• and title plus last name (TLN)
in 2-party interactions we can use reciprocal FN, reciprocal TLN and
nonreciprocal FN-TLN.
the specific meaning of FN and TLN varies depending on who is being
addressed
We select among the options depending on how we perceive the
relationship with the person we’re speaking with
We evaluate socially meaningful characteristics of individuals and
then make judgements about our status relative to theirs and then
make decisions about the appropriate form of address to use.
Socially meaningful factors include:
•Age
•Gender
•Class
•Ethnicity
•Occupation
Power relations
Superior
Equal
Subordinate
To equal acquaintances
reciprocal forms
of address occur
between status
equals
To a superior stranger
 non-reciprocal forms are typical of unequal relationships
Reciprocal TLN marks formality or politeness
To a close subordinate: a child
FN indicates intimacy if
spoken by a friend or
relative but shows
condescension if used by
a superior to a
subordinate in nonreciprocal exchanges
We have full FN, (Thomas), shortened FN (tom) diminutive (Tommy)
 Children are usually addressed by shortened and or diminutive
names both by other children and by adults
Even more subordinate: a pet
Inequality reigns
salesperson is
subordinate to
customer
teacher is superior to
student
dentist is superior to
patient
 use of non-reciprocal TLN-FN requires a complex assessment by
speakers of their position vis-a-vis addressees
occupational status and relative age are the most important factors
in choice of form.
occupation whether as an ongoing relationship (e.g.
employer=employee) or a situational contract (waiter –customer)
Solidarity relations
Stranger
Acquaintance
Friend/relative
Navajo women typically used TLN when conversing with Anglos, even of the same
age as themselves, whereas they usually use FN to age equals
To equal acquaintances
TLN marks
distance and
deference
To a close equal: a young friend
To a close equal: an old friend
Reciprocal FN tends to indicate intimacy or casualness i.e.
lack of distance
To an even closer equal
Terms of address
What contextual elements influence the
form used?
 Is the formality of the setting relevant?
 Is the kinship relation or other social relationship
relevant?
 Is age or generation relevant in selecting the
appropriate form?
 Is relative status or rank relevant in selecting an
appropriate term?
 Is the gender of the speakers relevant
Forms of address
 vary with
the nature of the relationship between speakers
reciprocal use of first names generally signifies an informal intimate
relationship
 title and last name used reciprocally indicates a more formal or
businesslike relationship between individuals of roughly equal status
 nonreciprocal use of first names and titles is reserved for speakers
who recognize a marked difference in status between themselves
this status can be a function of age (as when a child refers to her
mother's friend as Mrs Miller and is in returned referred to as Sally)
 or it can be along occupational lines as when as person refers to his
boss by title and last name and is in return addressed as John
Does naming matter?





To the hearer: Yes.
To the speaker: Yes.
A wrong choice can offend or hurt.
Decisions are difficult.
The better you speak English, the more a
wrong choice will offend.
Pronouns
In most European languages complexity of address is demonstrated
in pronoun systems
Most have two forms of second person pronoun – you
European pronouns distinguish both number of hearers and
relationship between participants
When speaking to more than a single individual, a speaker must use
the plural pronoun, referred to as the V form (French vous) which has
equivalents in all other languages)
When speaking to one person speakers chose either the T form or the
V form
Choice of form is a sensitive indicator of personal relationships and
societal values
Two semantic components operate when selecting pronouns: power
and solidarity
When pronouns are exchanged reciprocally solidarity between
participants is stressed
Nonreciprocal usage reflects an unequal power relationship i.e. a
superior uses T and receives V
A subordinate use V and receives T
Differences in power due to class, occupational hierarchies, age and
gender
e.g. adults address children with T but receive V
employers address workers with T and receive V
in former times class distinctions determined use of T and V
members of upper classes exchanged V and lower classes addressed
each other with T
this difference among equals within classes was based on
emphasizing mutual solidarity
because upper classes were used to receiving V from subordinates.
They exchanged it among themselves
likewise lower class people were regularly addressed with T
Power Semantic
 Determines which pronoun will be used on the basis of the difference in social
status (or power) between the speaker and addressee.
 wealth, age, sex, institutionalised roles in church, state, army, family
 Use of vous in job interviews keeps relations distant and avoids confusion
 The T of "intimacy" versus the V of "formality" (French tu or vous)
 Based on an asymmetrical relation and is non-reciprocal.
 With increasing social mobility and ideology that has a distaste for expression of
differential power there has been a preference for mutual use of T
 T was chosen because the V form was used by the upper classes speakers among
themselves and associated with elite privilege inconsistent with ideology of
equality
Kinship terms
by extending kinship terms (brother, sister, aunt) to non-kin (fictive kinship)
we signal intimacy, solidarity or deference toward co-participants
Use of such terms creates images of the prototype
In China the most respectful term for addressing a man is bobo
Used to address an elder paternal uncle it implies both an exalted status for
the addressee, and a humbling of the speaker
reflects cultural models of the valued relationship between benevolent
older kin who take care of the younger ones, who reciprocate with affection
and later in life with care.
Invocation of the kinship term
extension of sibling terms among members of political or religious groups
signals solidarity
Honorifics
linguistic markers that signal respect toward an addressee
Can be nouns, pronouns and verbs, particular words or grammatical
markings that express honour to one perceived as a social superior
The most common honorifics in modern English are usually placed
immediately before the name of the subject. Honorifics which can be
used of any adult of the appropriate sex include "Mr.", "Mrs." and
"Ms.". Other honorifics denote the honoured person’s occupation, for
instance "Doctor", "Coach", "Father" (for a priest), or "Professor".
 Abbreviations of academic degrees, used after a person's name, may
also be seen as a kind of honorific (e.g. "Jane Doe, Ph.D.")
Some honorifics act as complete replacements for a name, as "sir" or
"ma'am", or "your honor".
 Subordinates will often use honorifics as punctuation before asking a
superior a question or after responding to an order: "Yes, sir" or even
"Sir, yes sir."
Politeness
Some languages have anti-honorific or disrespective
first person forms (meaning something like "your most
humble servant" or "this unworthy person") whose
effect is to enhance the relative honour accorded a
second or third person.
 In the Thai court the correct use of formal modes of
addressing royalty with linguistic terms that exalted
royalty and humbled those of lower status.
 The first person pronoun used when addressing the
king meant `I the slave of the Lord Buddha'
 second person meant `the dust beneath the sole of
your august feet' meaning that the speaker did not
dare address the king directly but to the dirt on the
floor.
 The Thai person who addresses his comments to the
dirt beneath the king's shoe is invoking a cultural
image of `low status' but he is also indexing relative
identity in the social interaction of discourse.
Japanese contains honorifics that signal the relative status of participants directly
by marking the high status of an addressee, by indirectly lowering the speakers
status relative to the addressee and a third class expressing respect to the addresses
by deferential marking of an entire utterance
In order to use the honorific system appropriately, Japanese speakers must be
aware of relationships between selves, their interlocutors, and the persons, entities
and activities spoken about.
If an action is honourable then the sentence is marked with an honorific
Using the -san honorific with a name [ie. Usagi-san, Tsukino-san] denotes formality.
(like Mr/Miss/Mrs.) Usually a younger person to older adult, classmates, or people
unfamiliar/unclose with each other.
oba-san Middle-aged woman, aunt.
obaa-san Grandmother.
oji-san Middle-aged man, uncle.
ojii-san Grandfather
ojoo-san Young girl, some else's daughter.
okaa-san Mother.
onee-san Older sister.
onii-san Older brother.
otoo-san Father.
ouji-sama Prince
oujo-sama Princess
in hierarchical relationships statuses are enacted through the words
and actions of the lower status person
differentiation of high and low status appears to be instigated by
someone of lower status than by holders of higher status
the lower status person must use honorifics and self-deprecating
language
the response in ordinary language communicates message that
others must defer to them.
Honorifics, forms of address etc.
demonstrate the complexities of the
interdependence of language and
social knowledge
In order to speak appropriately,
members of each culture must
evaluate characteristics of coparticipants before deciding on
proper linguistic form.
Topics and Goals
On what do we base our choice of topics for
discussion?
personal interest
sensitivity to preferences of co-participants
cultural norms
Settings/contexts
What topics are taboo at the
dinner table?
How do we control
inappropriate topics
Speaker’s Goals
What our goals in engaging in conversation
We want to express our
personal interests and get
others to talk about what
interests us
We want to minimize
potential conflict with others
and appear agreeable,
cooperative and polite
the latter goal is achieved in
part by acting in accordance
with culturally approved ways
of speaking
We can use linguistic forms to achieve our goals and at the
same time enlist the cooperation of others
“gimme the salt” (gimme gimme never gets)
Informal and impolite
Imperative – a direct expression of desire
 May also use a “key” i.e. Manner of saying
that indicates how the words should be
interpreted
“would you be so kind as to pass the salt
Formal and polite
uses polite mitigating words: “be so kind”
Interrogative – an indirect expression of desire
The two expressions have different form and force and use different
linguistic types
but their underlying intent is the same
How do we decide which one to use?
Depends on person stylistic preferences and assessment of settings and coparticipants
 May involve different assumptions about individual’s rights obligations and
accepted norms of interaction
We can use different means to get what we want
We can be polite and meek or we can be aggressive
And the words and style of speech we use are the
same
But goal is the same
good cop bad cop
the same linguistic form can also express different intents,
depending on the setting, participants, and topics
“I love you like my brother”
“I love you like my brother”
Same words, different context, different meaning
Narratives
Stories or framed segments of ongoing discourse that relate or
report events in chronological sequence
1. Historical: recount events in history of a community or a people
2. Mythic: recount happenings in primordial times or supernatural
realm
3. Personal: relate events in the speaker’s life or other person
personal narratives play a central role in almost every conversation
people talk about their experiences, past events that have meaning in
their lives
 included to dramatize a person’s feelings thoughts and opinions
Imagine you are the driver of the truck
Tell the story of what happened
Personal Narratives
 a report of a sequence of events in the biography of the speaker told
in
 events have meaning to speakers life and that are emotionally and
socially evaluated and so transformed from raw experiences
 the outcome of the narrator’s editing
 certain events are highlighted others eliminated to make the story
more coherent, dramatic, and convincing
 personal narratives must be “reportable” i.e. Be of interest to the
audience
speakers may assert causality, praise or blame, or comment on the
competence or incompetence of people in the story
they must also be credible i.e. assert that events recounted actually
took place
credibility this distinguished personal narratives from jokes, tall tales
or fantasies
How do we make the Narrative credible?
What makes you believe the story of the plane and the truck?
By telling it in chronological sequence it helps us as the audience
understand how the narrator experienced the events. We experience
it “as if” we were the narrator
If described in objective rather than emotional terms they are more
credible
when narrators add subjective reports of emotion to the description
of an objective event, listeners become aware of that event as if it
were the narrator’s experience and not theirs
 prosodic features (tone, stress, rhythm, volume) changes in voice
quality, pauses etc. reflect the dramatic and aesthetic elements of the
performance
 These narratives do not describe emotional states but evoke them by
dramatic shifts of pause and voice
Narrative Cultural Norms
Different cultures have different conventions
as to how stories are to be told
e.g. Entitlement to quote an absent speaker
in Polynesia people use quoted speech in
everyday discourse because it is considered
inappropriate to speculate about other
people’s thoughts and feelings.
But narrators are expected to repeat the
exact words and the identical prosodic
features (voice quality, volume, intensity,
pitch) of the source
Androcles and the Lion
A slave named Androcles once escaped from his master and fled to the forest. As he was
wandering about there he came upon a Lion lying down moaning and groaning. At first he
turned to flee, but finding that the Lion did not pursue him, he turned back and went up to him.
As he came near, the Lion put out his paw, which was all swollen and bleeding, and Androcles
found that a huge thorn had got into it, and was causing all the pain. He pulled out the thorn
and bound up the paw of the Lion, who was soon able to rise and lick the hand of Androcles like
a dog. Then the Lion took Androcles to his cave, and every day used to bring him meat from
which to live. But shortly afterwards both Androcles and the Lion were captured, and the slave
was sentenced to be thrown to the Lion, after the latter had been kept without food for several
days.
The Emperor and all his Court came to see the spectacle,
and Androcles was led out into the middle of the arena.
Soon the Lion was let loose from his den, and rushed
bounding and roaring towards his victim. But as soon as he
came near to Androcles he recognised his friend, and
fawned upon him, and licked his hands like a friendly dog.
The Emperor, surprised at this, summoned Androcles to
him, who told him the whole story. Whereupon the slave
was pardoned and freed, and the Lion let loose to his
native forest. Gratitude is the sign of noble souls.
Historical and mythic narratives are often told to invoke specific cultural and interactional
meanings
Such narratives may conform to a specific set of stylistic devices, especially in opening and
closing “Once upon a time”
They may have morals and are told to specific individuals to make them aware of their
behaviour and to teach them
The intent may be to make people think about their lives
in some traditions narratives tat tell sacred or folkloric stories may need to be told each time in
exactly the same way e.g. Rig Veda myth of Purusha
Routines
Speech acts - greetings partings,
apologies, thanks, complements,
frequently expressed by highly predictable
and stereotyped linguistic patterns
They combine verbal material and social
messages in patterns expressive of cultural
values and sensitive to interactional
context.
appropriate use requires that speakers
know rules dictating both linguistic form
and situational relevance
Common Features of Routines
they all create, reaffirm and or negotiate social solidarity their
primary goal is social rather than referential
typically occur as sequences of exchanges between participants,
minimally consisting of an utterance by the first speaker followed by a
return or acknowledgment by the second speaker
 they are formulaic in structure
each category (greetings, complements
etc) consists of instances of patterned
forms used by most speakers on most
occasions
the expected and redundant linguistic
form of these speech acts is what in fact
makes them routines
Greetings
Function to begin communicative
interactions or to acknowledge the
presence of others
Basic structure is stereotyped in each
culture
People can use more or less formal
constructions, pronunciations, and or
prosodic features to create diverse
introductions to encounters
Different kinds of greeting may be
related to situational context, status
relationships between speakers,
personal personal goals also cultural
factors e.g. time of year
Some are temporally restricted e.g.
good morning
Season’s greetings
Six features of greetings
1. occur at the beginning of a social
encounter
2. people engaged in greeting
recognize each other’s presence
3. Greetings are typically part of one
or more sets of adjacent pairs i.e.
two part sequences in which the
first pair is uttered by one party and
the second is a reply by another
4. Relative predictability of form and
content
5. greetings occur only once in an
interaction
6. Identification of the other person as
a distinct being worth recognizing
In some cultures greeting exchanges are
manipulated in order to affirm status
inequalities between participants
reflecting cultural models
e.g. Wolof in Senegal it is the lower rank
that has to greet the higher
Wolof greeting behaviours reflect an
underlying cultural assumption that
social relationships are inherently
unequal
Apologies
What is the purpose of an apology
to maintain or establish rapport between
participants
What requires they be given?
actions perceived to have negative effects on
addresses and for which speakers take
responsibility
The apologiser basically says that they are guilty
of an offence against the other, that they have
breeched some social rule
But they also acknowledge belief in the rule –
that the person had a right to be offended
apologies are routinized in the sense that they are expressed with
stereotyped formats comprised of three-parts
an explicit expression of apology - I’m sorry, I apologize, or a
request forgiveness for forgiveness - forgive me
Followed by an explanation of the transgression – I wasn’t thinking
Or acknowledgement of responsibility - It was my fault
Followed by acceptance of the apology – I forgive you, don’t do it
again
apology
accepted
Apologies vary depending on the nature of the relationship
between the people
Lower status are more likely to apologize to higher stratus
Explicit apologies between people who know each other well
Serious offences are perhaps more likely, than in formal situations