Pattern Two: (Low Pre-Head +) High (Medium) Level Head + Mid-Level (+Tail)
Attitude:conveying the impression of non-finality, expectancy, hesitation; sometimes calling out to someone as from a distance, eg:
Statement
Stimulus: I thought they all knew.
Response: >JOHN says | he knew ~* nothing AvBOUT it.
Special Question
Stimulus: What a horrible situation!
Response: As a > FRIEND | Vwhat do you ad'vise me to xDO?
General Question
Stimulus: It doesn't matter.
Response: D'you >MEAN that | or are you "*just being XNICE a.bout it?
Imperative
Stimulus: What about Peter?
Response: "'Ring him >UP | and "*tell him we shan't be * NEEDING him.
Exclamation
Stimulus: He's gone at last.
Response: Yes "*good->BYE and ""good ^RIDDANCE!
Intonation groups may be any length within normal physiological limits. But there is a strong tendency to keep them short, to break up potentially lengthy intonation groups wherever possible. This tendency is carried to the extremes when the intensity of excitation is the greatest. For instance, in the attitudinal context of 'irritation' optional internal boundaries are introduced starting at clause level and continuing downwards, depending on the degree of irritation present, up to and including the morphemic level, cf
| We gave him | a lift | on Sunday |
| We J gave him | a lift | on Sunday |
| We | gave | him | a | lift | on | Sunday |
Informal conversation is characterised by the frequency of silence for purposes of contrastive pause, as opposed to its being required simply for breath-taking. Pauses are brief and there is a large number of cases when intonation groups and sentences are not separated by any kind of pause, tonal differences being the only indications of their boundaries. The frequent absence of end-of-utterance pause can be interpreted in terms of inter-sentence linkage or it may be due to nature of the interchange, i. e. the rapid takihg-up of cues.
This style of speech is also characterised by the absence of stable pattern of tempo and rhythm. Generally, the speed of utterance is quite fast, but there is no conventional pressure for conversational speed to be regular. It depends to a large extent on the fluency of a speaker, on his familiarity with the topic being talked about, on his experience as a 'conversationalist', and so on.
One of the most essential distinctive features of informal spontaneous conversation is the occurrence of the entire range of hesitation phenomena. Eight types of events fall in this category:
(a) hesitation pauses, comprising unfilled (silent, voiceless), filled (voiced) and mixed varieties;
(b) hesitant drawls, i. e. lengthening of sounds, syllables and words;
(c) repetitions of syllables and words;
(d) false starts to words, followed by self-corrections;
(e) re-starting a construction or a sentence to conform more to what the speaker wants to say;
(f) unfinished intonation groups, often accompanied by reduced loudness of the voice;
(g) fillers-in, such as well, and, you see, you know, in fact, etc.;
(h) random vocalisations and such 'phonetic oddities' as
clicks, trills, intakes of breath, etc.
Hesitation phenomena with the co-occurring facial expressions, gestures and so on are of primary significance in determining the acceptability or otherwise of conversation. Perfect fluency tends to produce the wrong effect. These features, nowever, are regularly omitted in written representation of conversation, that is, in novels or dramatic dialogue.
Phonetics of conversation also involves attention to such phenomena as sound symbolism (eg brrr, bo. whoosh), artificial clearing of the throat or coughing for purposes of irony, various snorts and sniffs to communicate disgust and other attitudes.
As a specific type of linguistic activity spontaneous convcr sation is characterised by randomness of subject-matter and .1 general lack of conscious planning. This results in a high propoi tion of 'errors', involving hesitation features of all kinds, frequent switches in modality, apparent ambiguities, incompleteness of many utterances. Deficiencies of conversation are made up for by the co-occurring situational information and by the permanent possibility of recapitulation upon request of the listener.
Moreover, when studying this type of dialogue, it should be borne in mind that all levels of analysis provide important information about the character of the variety. At the grammatical level informal conversation displays the following characteristics. Sentence length is relatively short and the structure is predominantly simple. However, the grammatical delimination of sentences presents certain, difficulties, especially due to the frequent absence of intersentence pauses and loose coordination. So the term 'utterance* is preferable here. The notion subsumes any stretch of speech preceded and followed by a change of speaker. Thus, conversation progresses more in a series of loosely coordinated sentence-like structures than in a series of sharply defined sentences.
The most noticeable aspect of informal conversation is its vocabulary. Words tend to be very simple in structure, specialised terms and formal phraseology are generally avoided, and when they are used, their force is usually played down by the speaker through the use of hesitation. The lack of precision in the matter of word-selection is not important, any lexical item may be replaced by words like what-do-you-call-it, you-know-what-I-mean, thingummy, which function as nouns.
The following dialogue, obtained through the technique of surreptitious recording, provides a reliable sample of spontaneous informal conversation:
A: You got a 'COLD?
B: xNO, I just a - bit ^SNIFFY, } cos I'm | I VAM ,COLD } and I'll Vbe all 'right 'once I've 'warmed VUP. | Do I xLOOK as .though I've ,got a 'COLD?
A; No I -»thought you xSOUNDED as if you were.
B: XM.
A: -» Pull your VCHAIR up .close if you ,WANT. } >Is it...
B: XYES, } I'll be all - right in a , MINUTE | it's >just that I'm...
A: "* What have you xGOT?
B: VSTUPID, ] I had ] ý } about Vfive 'thousand xBOOKS | to Vtake back to 'senate xHOUSE /YESTERDAY | and I got Vail
the 'way 'through the v COLLEGE j >to j -* where the XCAR was ^ at the ~* parking meter at the xOTHER end ? and V realised I'd 'left my xCOAT } in my NLOCKER ] and I >just couldn't...
A-4M.
B: VFACE ] going -all the way *BACK again £ with >this great... ^ you know my XARMS were .aching.
A:XM.
B: And I > thought ] VWELL } I'll -get it on XTUESDAY | it's a bit v SILLY, $ 'cos 1VNEED it.
A: XM } it's - gone very vCOLD } vHASN'T it?
Â: ËÌ HI it's ëFREEZING.
(D. Crystal and D. Davy. "Investigating English Style")
We shall conclude the discussion of spontaneous informal conversation by examining the kind of dialogue occurring in a telephone situation, in which the participants are not visible to each other. To begin with, there is a very close linguistic similarity between telephone and non-telephone conversational situations in the sense that the kind of linguistic features is essentially the same. However, the range of these features is considerably diminished in a telephone conversation. This is due to the fact that the participants cannot rely on extralinguistic context to resolve ambiguities in speech. Moreover, the quality of the medium of transmission necessitates greater explicitness, for example, having to spell out words because of the distortion of certain sounds. There is also a tendency to avoid long unfilled pauses, since anything approaching silence can be interpreted as a breakdown of communication with the resulting 'Hello?' or •Are you there?'. But the percentage of filled hesitation pauses, and hesitation phenomena in general, is higher here than elsewhere. Besides, it is typical of the telephone situation that the listener is expected to confirm his continued interest and his. continued auditory presence. As a result long utterances are avoided.
Here is an extract to illustrate an informal telephone conversation:*
' Only speaker 'B' was aware that a recording was being made.
À: "* Highview double three four ,FIVE.
B: Good .MORNING.
A: HEL.LO, ,ARTHUR.
B: v VALERIE?
A: XYES, } good .MORNING.
B: Thi this is .ARTHUR , SPEAKING.
A: HEL.LO.
Â: À SORRY, ] I've Vbeen so 'long in 'getting in ,TOUCH .with you ] I "'rang a * COUPLE of times , YESTERDAY ] and you "* weren't .IN.
A: .NO, ] I was in .COLLEGE .yesterday.
B: You VWERE.
A: VYES and I...
B:A,HA.
A: "*Thought that might , HAPPEN £ but "not to ,WORRY. ] "What I wanted to say to you vREALLY £ was |»m| I Vdidn't know Iwhether you were >going to say ^ that you "could come or you * COULDN'T ^ but I was V going to 'say 'could you 'make it the FOLLOWING .Saturday.
B: £ ç: ] 7YES, well | ,ONE £ I was "going to >say that I £
that we x WERE , COMING. ,
À: ëYES, £,SPLENDID. I
B: And ,TWO ] we .CAN make it the .following .Saturday. {
(D. Crystal and D. Davy. "Investigating English Style")
Lastly, it is noteworthy that both the joke and the short story
may include spoken monologue to be uttered as if dialogue, vari
ous stylized devices such as different accents, tonal connectives,
pauses and vocal effects being adopted to indicate the change of
speaker, transitions from scene to scene or act to act, etc. 1