Eric Hauser explores how service encounters can involve mundane conversation.
These data come from a student-staffed service counter of a self-access learning center at a Japanese university. One reason for collecting these data is for comparison with TGG data, though in this analysis, I will not be concerned with drawing comparisons.
Although the student staff and the majority of clients are L1 users of Japanese, the default language at the service counter is English. In addition, the staff are encouraged to engage clients in casual conversation. In this squib, I look at how a member of the student staff finds a place to initiate such casual conversation, which results in the multi-activity of service transaction and casual conversation.
Excerpt lines 06-22
The student’s (STU) business in coming to the service counter is to return materials which she has borrowed. She states this in so many words in lines 08-09. As she says this and as she then apologizes for being late (line 11), she retrieves one book from her bag, places it on the counter (frame #4), and taps it once. The student staff member, or worker (WOR), responds to this in lines 12-15 through talk and taking the book from the counter (frame #5). She also quietly reads what is written on the book cover, “IELTS test” (line 14). While this can be heard as self-talk not designed as addressed to STU, it is also a publicly available noticing of the kind of book that is being returned. Meanwhile, from the end of line 12, STU starts to retrieve a second book from her bag. She flips through it, accounting for this through talk (lines 16 and 18) before placing it on the counter. WOR responds to this (line 20), while STU opens the cover of the book (frame #6), again accounting for this through talk (line 21), before tapping it and withdrawing her hand. Finally, WOR takes the book (line 22, frame #7).
WOR thus does a publicly available noticing of the type of book, which could presumably be topicalized had STU responded to it, while STU continues her engagement in a course of action that furthers her part in the service transaction. (This is not to say that STU’s response is missing, as it has not been made conditionally relevant by the design of WOR’s noticing.)
Excerpt lines 23-25
As she brings the second book toward herself (starting from line 22), WOR does a second noticing. This one, though, is done quite differently. Unlike the earlier one, it is not done in a quiet voice that can be heard as self-talk; it is prefaced by “oh,” which marks it as something just noticed (Heritage, 1984); it is formulated as a statement about STU, what Labov and Fanshel (1977) have characterized as a B-event statement, calling for either a confirmation or correction from the recipient; and it involves WOR shifting her gaze to STU and nodding at the end (frame #8). Its temporal location within the unfolding service transaction is also quite different, in that STU is no longer engaged in a course of action that furthers her part in this transaction. Rather, through self-grooming (line 23, frame #8), she displays that she does not have additional materials to return. The noticing in line 23 is thus both designed to receive a response and is placed in a temporal location which is propitious for receiving a response.
In response, STU confirms that she is studying for the mentioned test (line 24) and WOR assesses this with a display of awe (Greer, 2016), a positive assessment, and laughter. (The casual conversation continues after this for a few more turns, until both it and the service transaction are closed.) With the initiation of casual conversation, WOR and STU enter into multi-activity, but in different ways. STU’s part in the service transaction is, at least for now, finished, as she has returned the materials. She can thus engage in casual conversation while waiting for WOR to complete her part of the service transaction, which involves such things as checking that the CDs have been returned with the books and scanning barcodes. WOR, on the other hand, very slightly delays her part in furthering the service transaction as she does the noticing in line 23, before returning to it during her assessment in line 25 (frame #9).
As mentioned above, student staff at the service counter are encouraged to engage clients in casual conversation. The analysis of this particular case shows some of what is involved in actually bringing this off.
References
Greer, T. (2016). On doing Japanese awe in English talk. In M. T. Prior & G. Kasper (Eds.),
Emotion in multilingual interaction (pp. 111-130). John Benjamins.
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J.
M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299-345). Cambridge University Press.
Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation.
Academic Press.
In addition to my colleagues on the SWELL team, I would like to thank Phillip A. Bennett and Daniel Jackson for their help with collecting and analyzing these data and for their provision of valuable ethnographic information.
Kommentit