The function of spoken discourse has been studied using a variety of approaches. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Fairclough 2003) is widely used (see Wodak’s chapter in this book). A tried and tested approach is Speech
Act (SA) theory (Austin 1962, Searle 1969), which looks at the functions of
language, for example promising, offering, threatening, inviting, suggesting, ordering, apologizing, praising and regretting. SA theory answers questions like ‘Do advanced learners of X language use all the range of vague expressions that native speakers do when apologizing?’ and ‘How do people promise, offer and threaten indirectly?’ Another approach is the Cooperative Principle (CP) (Grice 1975), which explains how speakers keep conversations going smoothly, following maxims about being sincere, giving the right amount of information, being relevant and clear. CP answers questions such as ‘Are certain disfluency features associated with lying?’ and ‘Are the four maxims flouted in the same way across cultures X, Y and Z?’ The last approach to be mentioned here is the
Politeness Principle (PP) (Brown and Levinson 1987), which is about saving
face, by being indirect, not imposing and keeping respectful distance, or show- ing closeness and solidarity. PP answers questions such as ‘Do speakers avoid offending by using vague reference and incomplete utterances?’ and ‘Do some cultures put more value on showing respectful distance than other cultures?’ To demonstrate these approaches, let us examine some published studies.
Speech acts in spoken corpora have been analysed by many. Adolphs (2008: 43–88) focused on suggestions in the Cambridge and Nottingham corpus of Discourse in English (CANCODE) and the variables of relationship, domain and topic. She discovered that the informal expression ‘why don’t you’, as in ‘Why don’t you just wait?’ is used more between intimates, whereas the verb ‘suggest’, as in the more formal ‘I wish to suggest simply that . . . ’, is used more in pedagogic exchanges. She found that the ellipted ‘how about’, as in ‘How about finding out?’ was used in discussion of personal problems.
Many studies have investigated the functions of spoken discourse features using CP and PP. Let us take the example of vague language, which ‘nearly always enables polite and non-threatening interaction’ (Carter in Seidlhofer 2003: 92). Jucker, Smith and Lüdge (2003) found that vague quantifiers soften complaints and criticisms and establish a social bond. Ruziaté (2007: 213)
discovered that vague approximators were used by students and teachers in spoken academic discourse, ‘to shield their claims against possible criticism, avoid categorical claims, observe the politeness principle and save face’. Drave (2002) suggested that vague language promotes politeness and closeness, and is used for managing asymmetries of knowledge in intercultural interac- tion. Cutting (2000) discovered that an academic discourse community’s use of implicit features constituted a high involvement strategy for asserting in- groupness. Cutting (1998) also found that the most frequent function of vague language in the CANCODE was that of giving little importance to the referent, either to be friendly or to be critical.
Different approaches can give different interpretations of what is going on in any one stretch of spoken discourse. An analysis of excerpt (6) about Edinburgh buses (Cutting 2000) will demonstrate this.
Excerpt (6)
BM I had a really bizarre conversation with a bus driver over that and em it was early in the morning and he had the particular kind of accent that I c- didn’t quite catch everything he said. He didn’t quite catch every- thing I said either. So it was working both ways. So we had this really confusing conversation. (0.5) I was on the wrong bus. But anyway I’d got on it.
BF (heh heh) (1) We had a really neurotic bus driver this morning. Cos he (0.5) there must be something wrong with his hearing and everybody was getting on and saying forty please. He said well what kind of fare do you want? You know (heh heh heh)
DM // (heh heh heh) BM // (heh heh)
BF I wish you’d speak up you know. (heh heh) Really annoyed with everybody.
DM Demented bus driver. BF // (heh heh heh)
AF // (heh heh heh) You get the occasional one. (2.5) The wild ones are on the on the green buses actually. They go at a hell of a rate. Don’t stop for anything. If you got to // want to get somewhere
BF // Limited stop buses are they?
AF No just the no they’re just em the the SMT buses // the green ones that go
BF // Oh.
AF into Saint Andrew’s Square. The big ones and the little ones and the (0.5) I d- I don’t know. I think they’re on some sort of produc- tivity bonus or something.
Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis
DM What the more times they go round. // (heh heh)
AF // Yeah something like that.
BF Sponsored bus drivers. // (heh heh)
DM // (heh heh heh)
AF // (heh)
BM They give change don’t they.
AF They do.
BM They’re sort of we give change!
DM If you can get on the bus you get change then. BF Ah right. // That’s good.
DM // Yeah.
AF If you don’t mind breaking your leg as you try and get on. (heh heh) Taking a PP approach, one could reach the conclusion that the abundance of spoken discourse features suggests that all interlocutors wish to cohere socially and show solidarity by adopting the same relaxed style. They all use general extenders (‘I think they’re on some sort of productivity bonus or something’), discourse markers (‘But anyway I’d got on it’), fillers (‘You know’), communica- tion checks and confirmations (‘Ah right’) and indefinite pronouns (‘Don’t stop for anything’). The initial clausal ellipsis (‘Demented bus driver’, ‘Sponsored bus drivers’), stand-alone subordinate clauses (‘If you don’t mind breaking your leg as you try and get on’) and unfinished utterances (‘What the more times they go round’) make the interaction sound like one shared utterance.
PP analysis would reveal that the speakers are showing positive politeness by claiming common attitudes and knowledge. When BM says that he ‘had a really bizarre conversation with a bus driver’, BF laughs to encourage him and emphasizes her common attitude by telling a similar story about a funny driver, and the others laugh empathetically, DM joining in the fun by evalu- ating BF’s driver the same way. All four of them then exaggerate the speed of the buses, for their mutual amusement. BM adds a new dimension with his ‘They’re sort of we give change!’, DM shows solidarity by echoing the words and augmenting the story, and AF takes this one stage further again, linking the change joke to the speed joke. What emerges is a story-telling routine, a cosy bonding activity, in which speakers entertain each other.
If on the other hand, the conversation is analysed using CDA, a different picture emerges. We could notice that the speakers have concealed purposes and biases. BM asserts his assumption that laughing at a bus driver who does not hear well is acceptable. This persuades BF to enter into this politically incorrect game: she imposes her assumption that it is all right to laugh at peo- ple who seem ‘neurotic’ and this makes DM portray ‘demented’ people in the same vein. Once disabilities and mental illness are established as entertaining, nobody dare deny it or spoil the fun.
Power is expressed in language, and knowledge is power. AF as an Edinburgh resident has power over the in-comers: she talks about ‘the green buses’ with- out explaining, and when BF interrupts her with a request for an explanation, she carries on with further Edinburgh terms that do not help her. BF gives up with a single ‘Oh’; AF maintains her power. BM then adds what seems an irrelevant point about giving change; as the other Edinburgh resident, and pos- sibly as a male not wanting to be out-done by a female, he needs to show that he too has knowledge of Edinburgh. AF does not encourage him to take over the centre stage position, with her minimal ‘They do’. DM, the other male, then seizes the chance to take over. CDA would see this as a power struggle, with the interlocutors competing to see who is the most knowledgeable, the best story-teller and the nicest to be with.
It is uncertain which of these two interpretations is ‘right’. It could be that they both are, or that neither is. Asking the people recorded often does not help in interpretation, as intentions can go on at multiple subliminal levels. All the researcher can do is guess.