Interactional Sociolinguistics

FAQ

Are 'line' and 'face' related? 

Yes, there is an important relationship between line and face. Our line is the impression of ourselves and the definition of the situation which we try to maintain in a particular situation. Our face is our overall  public image that we claim for ourselves. It has to do with the two basic human needs of being liked and being respected. Thus, if we are successful in maintaining and advancing our line, then we are successful in maintaining our face. If our line is challenged by someone, or if we somehow fail in our performance, then we are in danger of loosing our face. 

I don't really understand the concept of 'teams'? If I am having dinner with friends, can I say that we are performing 'dinner routine' or 'on-stage'? Are my friends the team members? If that's so, when are we 'back-stage'? 

The concept of teams can be a bit complex because we usually perform in several teams at one time. The dinner with your friends is a good example. You are definitely 'on-stage' (whenever you are with other people you are on-stage'). You are probably performing the 'dinner-routine', but you may be performing a number of other smaller routines as well. On one hand, all of the friends at the dinner constitute one team, performing the dinner routine for the staff and other people in the restaurant (who might be another team). At the same time, within the group of friends, there will also be smaller teams. For example, you and your best friend might be one team, and a third friend and his girlfriend might act as another team. These teams might even shift and change throughout the dinner. 

Back-stage is where you are not performing. For example, you may go to the toilet to adjust yourself and look at yourself in the mirror. This is back-stage. 

We didn't talk too much about the SPEAKING model in the lecture. What do we have to know about this topic? 

The reason we only touched on this briefly is because you will be talking about it in more detail in your Intercultural Communication class next year, only in that class it will be referred to as 'the Grammar of Context'. The SPEAKING model developed by Hymes is simply a way that you can analyze a situation to determine what kind of rules for interaction are assumed by members of a certain culture. Hymes believed that to being competent in communication requires knowing more that just the words and the grammar of the language. We also need to know the rules about who says what to whom when, where and how. These rules are usually tacit (unspoken) and differ from culture to culture. The best way to understand the SPEAKING model is to choose a situation and to try to list the rules that exist for interacting in that situation for your culture in each of the different categories in the model. Then you can also try to apply the model to different cultures. 

What's the relationship between the face strategy and politeness strategy? Face decides face strategy, but politeness strategy seems has no relation with face or face strategy.

Actually, face strategies and politeness strategies are the same thing. It's just different terminology used by different researchers. The face strategies of independence and involvement are the same as negative politeness strategies and positive politeness strategies respectively. 

What are interactive frames? 

Interactive frames are the smaller frames within larger 'interpretative frames' (or 'primary frameworks'). The represent the discrete activities that we perform (like joking, flirting, arguing, discussing, chatting, etc.). Interactive frames are signaled by contextualization cues (changes in voice quality, intonation, posture, gesture, etc.). The biggest difference between larger interpretative frames and smaller interactive frames is that the larger interpretive frames are based more on external factors (the situations in which we find ourselves), while we can change interpretive frames by the way we act. Thus, interactive frames are strategic resources in conversation. When we are interacting, we shift frames in ways that are advantageous to us. 

How can I distinguish between interpretive and interactive frames?

Easy. Interpretive frames are chosen for us based on the speech situation. Interactive frames are the ones we can change as we go along. Actually, it's probably better to call interpretive frames 'primary frameworks' since all frames are actually used for interpretation. 

How should I 'interpret' interactive frames within interpretive frames. 

This is a good question and really shows the close relationship between interpretative frames and interactive frames. The way you signal an interactive frame in one situation (or one interpretive fame) might be different from the way you do it in another. For example, the way you show you are joking in a lecture may be different from the way you do so in the Festival Walk. So, the way we interpret interactive frames will depend on the interpretive frame we are in. 

What is the difference between contextualization cues and paralinguistic cues?

Paralinguistic cues are a kind of contextualization cue using aspects of phonology (intonation, stress, speed and tempo, voice quality). 

How does 'gravy' apply to paralingusitic cues? 

This refers to a study done by John Gumperz on Indian servers in a British canteen. Whereas in British English, the activity of 'asking' is signaled with rising intonation and 'ordering' is signaled by falling intonation, in Indian English, one word questions do not get such marked rising intonation. When the Indian servers used falling intonation to ask customers if they wanted gravy on their meat, the British customers thought they were being impolite because they interpreted the falling intonation as an 'order' ('I'm giving you gravy whether you like it or not') rather than a question.  

What is the difference between code-switching and code-mixing? In my belief, code-mixing is a trendy act in Hong Kong. Some theorists take this as one of the elements to show Hong Kongers identity. Can one say that code switching also shows one's identity. 

Code switching is when you shift from speaking one language to speaking another language. Code-mixing is when you mix one language with another in the same utterance. Hong Kongers typically mix English words into Cantonese. You're right, this has something to do with showing identity, but also has other reasons which we will discuss later in the course. Code switching is sometimes associated with identity, but more often associated with a shift in activity (or frame) as when an English teacher switches to Cantonese to scold her students.