Communication Practice in a Text:

¶ … Communication Practice in a Text: Conversation of Two Female Students

Communication practices within two-person conversations vary depending on (1) context; (2) relationship(s) of speakers; (3) medium (e.g., face-to-face; telephone talk; telephone text messaging; e-mail, etc.); (4) implied knowledge or understanding between speakers, and (5) subject(s) discussed. According to Dijk (1995) distinct social groupings inevitably impact content and context of human discourse: "norms or values, position, resources, attitudes... social representation shared by members of a group... "(qtd. In Bee, 2001, p. 2).

According to Foucault (1970a; 1970b; 1972; 1980) the three criteria that should be used to analyse human discourse are: (1) language; (2) power; (3) context; and (4) relationship. Building on Foucault's earlier theories of human discourse, Fairclough (1993) suggested three distinct levels of human discourse, each of which influences meaning in its own way. These are: (1) social identities; (2) social relations; and (3) systems of knowledge or belief affecting language content and context.

Within the conversational text to be examined, the conversation between two female students might have taken place either (1) face-to-face, tape-recorded, then transcribed into written text (spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors and all); (2) by telephone, then similarly recorded and transcribed; (3) as written e-mail dialogue; or (4) as written telephone text messaging dialogue. In my opinion, based on the way the text is written (e.g., with verbal responses included, like "mm," and indications of mumbling on one end, the conversation is a written transcription of an originally verbal conversation between two female students making social plans. I will discuss communication practices in the text, including (1) implied meanings and understandings, (2) verbal expression and inflected speech, which, in conversational text, replaces capitalization and punctuation (but can cause problems with clarity when transcribed into writing); and (3) the peer relationship between the speakers.

First, the conversation is one between two college-age friends who share a circle of friends. "A" initiates the conversation with a question about Prague, implying that that is the reason she has begun the conversation with "S." In the first sentence, a says: "everyone wants to go to Prague for new year (3)do you think it would be good to go to Prague." This sentence implies, first, that'd" knows who "everyone" is; and that'd" knows what is meant by "Prague" (Prague is the name of the capital city of Czechoslovakia, but could also be the name of a club). Second, "A" is asking a question at the end of the sentence: "do you think it would be good to go to Prague." That would be apparent by "A's tone of voice in the actual conversation, but when transcribed into writing, the reader must imagine that inflected tone at the end of "A's sentence. Third, content and tone imply conversation between peers, rather than non-equals (e.g., boss and employee; teacher and student).

The middle of the conversation maintains those same patterns. Now, however, "A" tries harder (although without saying so) to convince "S" to come to Prague for New Year's: ("i only want to go if everyone's going cos it's like new year you want all your friends to come"). Then, however, "S" deftly changes the subject. First "S" asks "is everyone going," implying another question. But then, without waiting for confirmation everyone is going, which might convince "S" to agree to go, "S" continues with: "oh we're all going to see Judge Jewels aren't we on the Thursday second November obviously."

By changing the subject "S" implies several new possible significances. First, by asking again if everyone is going ("A" began the conversation, probably only a few seconds ago, with "everyone wants to go to Prague for new year") "S" implies she still needs to be convinced, by "A," to go. By not waiting for an answer, though, "S" also deflects attention from the Prague issue. Second, by changing the subject to "oh we're all going to see Judge Jewels aren't we on the Thursday second November obviously" "S" brings up something else before committing to going, perhaps implying she wishes to still remain non-committal about Prague, but also reconfirm their friendship by reminding "A" about Judge Jewels, a social engagement (even if "S" doesn't go to Prague) that would "obviously" include "A."

But then "A" asks (about Judge Jewels) "when's that'd" replies "Thursday second of November," but then "A" repeats the question: "when'e that." "S" says, again: "Thursday." "A" then asks "S": "when's that (.) you know what I mean."

The implication of "when's that (.) you know what I mean" is apparently clear to both speakers (but not to someone reading a transcription of the conversation).

Then "S" reminds "A": "Thursday we get back to college," and "A" replies "mm," perhaps signaling (as "S" had done earlier in response to the Prague invitation) non-commitment.

Then "S" presses the matter (as "A" had done earlier, about Prague) adding: "i think anyway (3)and we're all going to dress up totally." "A" wants to know the price, which "S" can only estimate: "dunno (1) probably just a tenner" (which, according to "S" is excellent," a further attempt at convincing "A" to go to Judge Jewels. "A" next wants to know: "On Thursday where," but "S," without answering that question, adds: it'll be so much fun cos everyone wo goes there's really serious and about their clubbing and stuff and they all face the (1) dj box and they're like."

Then "A," implying she has already had a similar experience elsewhere, says "they do that at shindig." "S," by way of reply, only mumbles, and then "A" repeats they do that at shindig." "S," seemingly ignoring both references to "the shindig" goes right on with "and um they just it's excellent it was brilliant last time."