Understanding how communication works and is produced, on a face-to-face level, is something that many sociologists find fundamentally important. Analysing face-to-face interactions through examining real life interactions as data is a way of studying this (Wiemann & Knapp, 1975). The analysis of data is useful in that it provides useful points of interest when looking through the lens of micro-sociology. Micro sociology is a major branch of sociology and the theory centres itself on structures within every day social interactions and the way in which individual agency interrelates in such situations (Goodwin & Heritage, 1990). Such study helps to locate norms within transactions that occur from person to person and provide useful discussion points as to the way in which society is maintained and social order is held together (Goffman, 2003).
Conversational analysis is a theory that has helped in the understanding of these sorts of processes and involves the study of conversations that occur within everyday life, but more specifically within institutional settings (Goodwin & Heritage, 1990). Conversational analysis looks at the particulars within interactions such as the process of turn taking between those involved in an interaction, interruptions, and other structures that are involved in conversation (Goodwin & Heritage, 1990). Politeness theory is also useful in understanding social phenomena and primarily looks in to the ways that one’s face can be threatened by face-threatening acts to those involved in an interaction (Holtgraves, 1997). Both theories are derived from the seminal work Erving Goffman, who is recognised as a significant contributor to micro-sociology. Within Goffman’s theory of dramaturgy, is outlined the way that life is a performance and we perform differently in different situations and we are either performing front-stage, back-stage, or off-stage, and this depends on whether there is an audience watching (front-stage), whether we are simply with other actors (backs-tage), or with those not involved in the performance all together (off-stage) (Goffman, 1971). Within the performance actors must maintain composure and control their emotions so they are in line with their performance and Goffman calls this the maintenance of expressive control (Goffman, 1971)
All of these theories will be used to discuss the data that I have chosen for this research project. The piece of data comes from Big Brother Australia and follows a one-minute excerpt from an interaction between the Big Brother host Gretel, recent Big Brother evicted resident Michael, and a live television audience.
Conversational analysis discusses how data that is observed and analysed is most useful when it is naturally occurring and is not manufactured or artificial in any way (Goodwin & Heritage, 1990). As is the case with televised interactions, there is a level at which the data could be considered not ‘naturally occurring’. However, a case could be made that, while the interaction is being watched by both a live audience and television viewers, set up interactions occur frequently within every day interactions whereby the interactants have pre-planned agendas and reasons for the interaction to take place (Grancea, 2007). Furthermore the capacity of the host to direct all conversational traffic is limited and at some point genuine interaction occurs (Grancea, 2007). The variability in the direction that interviews can lead and be taken thus proves that the data that has been selected for this research project maintains a level of natural occurrence and is suitable for such an analysis.
The piece of data, referred to in the media as the ‘Gretel incidence’, initially begins with what is known as a typical television interview. An interview typically involves the participation of both an interviewer and an interviewee/s and is generally structured and conducted in a controlled manner that involves the use of questions and conversational turn taking to provide direction for the interview (Laurebach & Aijmer, 2007). Within the context of the Gretel incident this is more or less what occurs during the interview. As the interview gets underway there is a level at which the controlled environments aforementioned is maintained. It is apparent that Gretel, as the interviewer and host of Big Brother, holds a position of power and exercises this by directing conversational traffic. Gretel functions as host and holder of power and this is bolstered by her introducing Michael to the audience and television camera suggesting that she effectively ‘owns’ the conversational space that the two are currently occupying. Though this hierarchical structure is unspoken it is apparent that Michael, being the interviewee, is aware of the dynamic and complies with by remaining silent until it is his turn to speak once he is asked a question at 0:52.
Typical turn taking procedures would indicate that once Michael has been asked a question it is his ‘turn’ (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974) but this is prematurely cut off when Gretel interrupts him mid-sentence at 0:56:
M: The interviews have been interesting, they’ve focussed on several topics and….
G: What ones
M: Ahhh…The David and myself relationship.
G: What ones
M: Ahhh…The David and myself relationship.
Interruptions, within the context of turn taking in a conversation, can provide a source of tension and, when intended, can lead to potential communication breakdown (Sacks et al., 1974). As a way of saving face, Michael continues the interaction as normal and maintains his expressive control. It is at this point, as a viewer, I was aware that both Michael and Gretel were carrying agendas into the interview that were starting to surface, both of which involved saving face. It became apparent that the ‘David and myself relationship’ was something that had damaged Michael’s face. It is at 1:20 where Gretel’s agenda surfaces and it becomes clear that she is trying to save the face of Big Brother by stating they do not edit their footage for the use of effect. Muntigal and Turnbull (1998) discuss the implications of being emotionally involved in an argument from the perspective of conversational analysis. They assert that turn taking procedures are often disregarded in such situations and exchanges, instead of following conventional norms, can disintegrate (Muntingal & Turnbull, 1998). This is, in effect, what begins to occur within the interaction from 1:15 onwards.
Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks (1977) suggest that established hierarchical dynamics can become ambiguous and tenuous at the onset of an argument. While the power dynamic between Gretel and Michael has remained consistent throughout the interview thus far, there is a level at which this relationship starts to weaken as Gretel’s negative facework continues. The point of contention within the discussion is raised very immediately at 1:16 as Michael points out that there was ‘effective editing by Big Brother’. It is at this point that Gretel assertively raises her finger at Michael moving the transaction from a simple discussion to a potential argument and face-threatening acts, such as finger-raising (Gill, 2012), are brought into play. Confrontation does not necessarily need to be direct (Gill, 2012), in this case Gretel simply has to ask the question ‘do you want to say that again?’ while nodding her head in a assertive manner to suggest that confrontation is occurring. What makes this an interesting interaction is that, on paper, such a question could be taken to imply that Gretel perhaps didn’t quite understand what Michael had initially said and required further clarification. But in the context of the discussion, her body language and tone of voice made it clear that the words that were said and what was being communicated were two very different things. As Garfinkle (1971, pg 77) points out "to recognise what is said means to recognise how a person is speaking" and this poignant statement relates very well to this instance. It is clear that Gretel isn’t simply asking Michael to rephrase what he said for her own clarification. There could be a few ways that this turn in conversation could be interpreted, one interpretation could be that she is giving him the opportunity to reconsider what was just said ‘or else’. This is a clear example of a negative face-threatening act (Holtgraves, 1997) that could potentially cause damage to the hearer Michael as she requests, and almost orders, Michael to repeat what was said. This also comes in the form of an unsaid threat.
M: It was great editing by Big Brother…
G: Hey, wait a minute,
M: umm…yes…?
G: Do you want to say that again?
G: Hey, wait a minute,
M: umm…yes…?
G: Do you want to say that again?
Michael’s response makes it clear that he is unsure of how best to respond to the question by repeating what he said but saying it in such a way that it didn’t sound like a statement but more of a question. The hesitancy in his voice suggests that he is unsure of how the following dialogue will ensue. As the organisation of turn taking, within the context of conversations, is fundamental to conversation taking one’s turn when it is not one’s turn runs counter to normal understanding of conversation structure (Wiemann & Knapp, 1975). From 1:20 through till 1:33 both Michael and Gretel continue to interrupt each other, disregarding unspoken rules that so frequently govern and structure everyday interactions. It is only until 1:33 that Michael asks Gretel to be able to finish his sentence. Such a hesitant question is an example of a negative face-threatening act causing damage to the speaker, Michael. The way that this is damaging Michael is due to the way in which the act shows that he is succumbing to the power of Gretel.
M: Wait, can I finish the sentence?
G: Yeah, give it a bash
M: Wait, just give me a chance
G: Yeah, give it a bash
M: Wait, just give me a chance
Gretel’s use of sarcasm in saying ‘yeah, give it a bash’ follows up her earlier threat and communicates that he is not being taken seriously by her. Gretel also looks directly at the cameras at this point as a way of inviting the audience into the interaction. The hushed laughter of the audience indicates that they pick up on this invitation and involve themselves in an audible way. Sarcasm can also be used as a face-threatening act in that it subtly uses humour in a defamatory way while the content of the words can seem harmless (Zajdman, 1995). Gretel is effective in her use of sarcasm both in this instance and also in a following instance that occurs at 1:40 when she interrupts Michael again.
M: I..I…As far as I’ve been told, because I haven’t been able to see anything so I’m going on heresay…
G: Right, that’s always a good basis.
M: Wait, can I, just give me a second and let me actually finish what I’m saying okay and I’ll let you too.
G: I’m absorbing, go on.
M: Okay.
G: Right, that’s always a good basis.
M: Wait, can I, just give me a second and let me actually finish what I’m saying okay and I’ll let you too.
G: I’m absorbing, go on.
M: Okay.
As the interaction that is taking place is a front-stage performance it is clear that both interactants are required to maintain their expressive control and stay ‘in character’. One could be forgiven to wonder how the interaction may have changed had it occurred in a setting that wasn’t backstage. Michael appears visibly distressed in the course of the conversation and at 1:53 looks down at the ground away from Gretel, slumps his shoulders and exhales in a deflated manner. After a brief pause he collects himself and tries to continue the conversation.
M: It’s been edited in a manner that you don’t actually…
G: Who told you this?
M: [pause] Do you want me to speak?
G: Who told you this?
M: [pause] Do you want me to speak?
The interaction continues in a similar manner for another 3 minutes before the topic is changed. While the interaction that has been discussed has totally one minute there has been a significant body of material in which to analyse and discuss. As the interactants are engaged in the conversation, there are a number of issues that move the discussion into one that could easily resemble and argument. All of this takes place without the use of any derogatory words but through the use of face threatening acts, interruptions, and body language. While an argument could easily be considered a back-stage, or even off-stage occurrence, this takes place in a front-stage environment and so the maintenance of expressive control is seen both with Michael and Gretel in the way they conduct themselves in a way that looks controlled and collected. This research project has provided a relatively detailed account of the ‘Gretel incident’ while providing a framework, through referring to micro-sociological concepts and theories, through with to analyse the data. This process has helped to solidify the importance of analysing such interactions so as to better understand the social environment in which we find ourselves.
References
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Gil, J. (2012). Face-Threatening Speech Acts and Face-Invading Speech Acts: An Interpretation of Politeness Phenomena. International Journal of Linguistics. 4(2), 400-411.
Goffman, E. (1971). Performances. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 28-82.
Goffman, E. (2003). On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction. Reflections, 4(3), 7-13.
Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology. 19, 283-307.
Grancea, L. (2007). Conversation Analysis: Method, Concepts, Applications. Cognition, Brain, Behaviour. 11(2), 331-352.
Holtgraves, T. (1997). Yes, But…: Positive Politeness in Conversation Arguments. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 16(2), 222-239.
Lauerbach, G., & Aijmer, K. (2007). Argumentation in Dialogic Media Genres – Talk Shows and Interviews. Journal of Pragmatics. 39(8), 1333-1341.
Muntigal, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational Structure and Facework in Arguing. Journal of Pragmatics. 29, 225-256.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organisation of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language. 50(4), 696-735.
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organisation of Repair in Conversation. Language. 53(2), 361-382.
Wiemann, J., & Knapp, K. (1975). Turn-Taking in Conversations. Journal of Communication. 25(2), 75-92.
Zajdman, A. (1995). Humorous Face-Threatening Acts: Humour as Strategy. Journal of Pragmatics. 23, 325-339.
