Informal vs. formal speech.

Introduction

Informal talk is a linguistic field which has not been thoroughly researched yet. Only a few books exist about this topic. Why do people talk in certain ways and what makes them say certain things in certain situations? It is the talk among friends which is a very special way of conversation. Everybody does it but nobody does it consciously. We feel relaxed and have no feeling of pressure while we are talking. This work will look beyond this picture trying to reveal the differences between formal and informal talk strongly taking the gender specific differences into consideration.

An essential factor in friendships is talk which we use to establish our bonds. Friends most often share the same style systems and conversation is not only used to exchange information but to cooperate in certain points. Deborah Tannen defines that kind of talk as a way to express closeness to our friends. But before informal talk is looked at more closely, communication will be divided into two categories – formal and informal talk. The main differences of these two groups will be presented in the first point. According to these basic facts the characteristics of informal talk among friends will be shown in point 3 (regarding Deborah Tannen's literature). An empirical analysis of own data will follow in the next point. Here, own facts will be compared to the results of Tannen's studies. Gender differences will also be regarded in this point as all-male and all-female conversations have been analyzed. A final definition of informal speech among friends can be found in point 5 where the results will be subsumed.

Informal vs. formal speech

a) Circumstances

One of the reasons why formal talk is chosen in a communication between people is that there is a very low risk of a face threatening act (fta). People with weak social bonds do not know much about each other and as normal humans do they do not want to risk an embarrassing situation. So in order to avoid the fta they use formal talk to increase the distance between them. Formal talk puts more emphasis on mode rather than on the speaker's aim. It depends mainly on the way how something is said more than what is being said. In informal talk, on the other hand, the speakers are more supportive. They know each other, have established their social positions and do not need to represent themselves in the image-building-competition.

b) When and who?

There are many differences between formal and informal speech. The use of formal and informal speech depends on several factors such as situational context and addressee. The certain relationship the speaker has to the addressee is of major importance in the choice of informal or formal talk. Formal talk always involves a certain distance between the speakers therefore it can be rarely found among friends. One example for this could be if not the social relationship between the friends determines the way of speech but the relationship to another third party is the actuator to use formal talk. Very often, formal talk can be found in open or public discussions among people (such as politicians).

They might be friends in real fact but in order to represent a certain picture in front of the public they use a speech style involving more distance. The decision whether to use formal or informal talk also depends on the different goals which shall be achieved and with which degree of politeness this can happen. The weight of imposition is also an important factor for the choice of speech. Distance, familiarity and the social status seem to be the most important features which lead the decision of the speaker. If the balance of power is not even, speaker and adressée could also be talking to each other in two different styles. That would be a combination of both informal and formal speech. In this case it would be ideal if the asymmetrical parties would claim common grounds.

c) Language

Regarding the linguistic features formal and informal talk differ strongly from each other. In comparison to formal talk the degree of politeness leads to more indirect expressions than in informal talk. Several face strategies strengthen the distance of the speakers. Downgraders (such as 'please'), Play-Downs (' I wanted to ask whether...') or Consultatives ('Would you mind if...') are distinctive features of formal talk. One of the reasons for the usage of these expressions is that the speaker has more time to think of what he wants to say. In comparison to informal talk formal talk always involves planned speech – the speaker thinks what the addressee will think when something is said, what will he/she answer? Reading between the lines is essential for formal talk. In comparison to informal talk the main action of formal talk takes place in the heads of people.

Characteristics of informal speech among friends

Informal talk is a very special kind of speech style. For there is not much literature about this topic there are not many sources to refer to. The only book which deals with this topic is Deborah Tannen's book from which the most important facts will be selected.

a) In General

First of all, defining the term 'friends' it has to be said that the same social level is being presupposed. But, as in many other cases, there are exceptions. Normally power and distance are not relevant in informal talk. A kind of familiar solidarity exists also when there is only one common ground. People who define themselves as friends know each other and therefore playful routines, irony and allusion as well as references to familiar jokes and assumptions can be found here according to Tannen. These characteristics will be further explained in the next points.

b) Communicative strategies

Tannen has defined communicative strategies which make up the speaker's style:

Don't impose ⇨ Distance
Give options ⇨ Deference
Be friendly ⇨ Camaraderie

Tannen writes that linguistic strategies which determine conversational style do not exist in a vacuum, they arise in response to strategies used by others in interaction. Speech styles are always typical of a certain role. Deborah Tannen differentiates between two different main styles:

c) High-Involvement Style

This style is fast-paced and highly interactive and can be found mainly in female conversations. There are only a ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

b) Communicative strategies

Tannen has defined communicative strategies which make up the speaker's style:

Don't impose ⇨ Distance
Give options ⇨ Deference
Be friendly ⇨ Camaraderie

c) High-Involvement Style

This style is fast-paced and highly interactive and can be found mainly in female conversations. There are only a few pauses between the turns and the topics which are being discussed are mainly of personal matter. Tannen uses the expression of machine-gun questions meaning much overlap and little pauses.

She speaks of a rapid rate of speech and latching of utterances which are devices used by some speakers to show solidarity, enthusiasm and interest in other people's talk. The combination of the following devices make up each individual speaker-style:

Topic

a) prefer personal topics

b) shift topics abruptly

c) introduce topics without hesitance

d) persistence (reintroducing a topic until it is picked up)

2. Pacing

a) faster rate of speech

b) faster turn taking

c) avoid interturn-pauses (silence shows lack of rapport)

d) cooperative overlap

e) participatory listenership

3. Narrative strategies

a) tell more stories

b) tell stories in rounds

c) prefer internal evaluation (dramatization of point of story)

4. Expressive paralinguistics

a) expressive phonology

b) marked pitch and amplitude shifts

c) marked voice quality

d) strategic within-turns pauses

The next style defined by Tannen is called

d) High-Considerateness Style

In this style the participants expect the conversation to be much slower which can be found mainly in male conversations. There are more pauses between the turns and interruptions are avoided. Talking about personal topics to new acquaintances might be a problem, writes Tannen. In order not to intimidate high-considerateness style speakers less devices are used by high-involvement style speakers to avoid misunderstandings such as interpreting overlaps as interruptions.

e) Narrative strategies

The next characteristic points Tannen describes are the narrative strategies of the speakers which can be mainly found within high-involvement speakers. The basic narrations deal with events that have occurred in the past. Usually the speaker refers to a story of personal experience which are exchanged by the communication partners. The evaluation of the person who listened to the narrator is divided into two different categories:

a) Expressive evaluation

This type has a slowed pace, marked intonation and voice quality, exaggerated and metaphoric statements, revulsion sounds or a certain style of expressiveness and overstatement

b) Understated evaluation

In this case extra words are often being used, the tone is monotonous and there is a certain style of nuance and understatement.

According to Tannen, both types of evaluation are instances of pragmatic synonymy. They are both used to show the same attitude of the speaker towards what he or she is saying. On the surface both speaker and addressee look different but basically they express the same meaning.

Prompting is the last narrative strategy mentioned by Tannen. With this she means encouraging somebody to speak by asking him questions or suggesting words that he could say. There are two different prompting styles:

a) Cooperative prompting

This style is used when a hearer has the feeling that he has not been told what the point of the speaker's story is. Here, prompting is used to continue or to make the speaker to get more specific about his topic. It is an exaggerated intonation which shifts from high to low pitch in order to show interest in the story the other person has to tell. Appreciating the significance of the described moment is also one feature of cooperative prompting according to Tannen.

b) Impatient prompting

This can be regarded as the equivalent to the cooperative style of prompting. Impatient prompting is uttered when the listener has not understood the point of the story or if there are misunderstandings as a result of a speaker's hesitant contribution. These kind of prompts are regarded as obstructive to the speaker.

The third point mentioned by Tannen is

f) Irony and Joking

The intention of sarcasm is mostly not humorous, it is more hostile most of the time. Whereas irony might excite a smile or a chuckle.

Cutler (1974) names three different intonational cues of irony:

a) nasalization of all or one part of an utterance

b) slower rate in all or participants

c) exaggerated stress on one or more parts

The main purpose of jokes is to entertain. But Tannen points out that the brand of humour is one of the most highly individualistic aspects of a person's style. That is why different people's humours sometimes clash which often leads to the opposite effect on the listeners.

Another style which can be often found in informal talk is mocking. In this case the speaker exaggerates either his own or someone else's speech patterns.

Additional to that it can be said that informal talk mainly consists of a direct speech style. Not many politeness factors can be found here. Even the opposite of this might be the case. To express closeness to the addressee, even obvious swear expressions might be used. Whereas there might be gender diversions in this case. The reason for this is, again, the common knowledge. Outside listeners might be wondering why the speakers talk in such a way to each other. But the aim of this is to strengthen the bonds between the speech partners – an in-group character is being created.

Another point which has to be taken into consideration is the specific gender difference in informal talk.

g) Male vs. Female

In her researches Jennifer Coates points out that “all participants share in the construction of talk in the strong sense that they don't function as individual speakers. In other words the group takes priority over the individual and the woman's voice combine to construct a shared text.” She compares this phenomenon with a “jam session”, a spontaneous, improvisatory performance of different kinds of instruments which complement one another to create a perfect harmony. The fact that men tend to talk more loosely when they are among themselves leads to the phenomena that they tend to use a more rude and impolite talking style. Whether all of these points can be found in reality will be analyzed in the following point. Empirical data of both all-male and all-female talk has been collected to prove or correct the existing studies.

Empirical Analysis

a) all-female informal talk

See transcript a

Context: S and M have come to visit N in her new flat. The three girls are sitting in the kitchen and have a loose conversation. They know each other for many years whereas M and N have shared knowledge about their school days. S has joined the group a few years later. Regarding these social bonds this conversation will now be analyzed under the characteristics by Tannen.

Starting off with the different communicative strategies which make up the speaker's own style – distance, deference and camaraderie – the first conversation example will be analysed. No impositions can be found in this conversation, the speakers are not offensive or rude in any way. They treat each other with respect which can be said in general. They do not use any hurting expressions or face threatening acts. Even the opposite is the case. In line 16 says N: “Wie scheisse ich da aussehe”. N gives M and S the option to support her opinion by saying: “Yes, you do look stupid on the photo!” but instead M comments her statement indirectly and says: “Aber das Foto ist doch nicht schlecht geworden.”. Through the “aber” she does not contradict N but cleverly turns the utterance into a compliment for something else. She shifts the topic to the quality of the photo. This kind of camaraderie by deferencing each other is a special feature of female informal talk.

There are no arguments in the conversation, it is generally a cooperation based talk.

Leaving the fact, that it is an all-female-group of speakers aside, it can be clearly stated that this conversation is characterized by high-involvement-style. Some style characterizing points will be picked out which prove this fact:

The speakers all tend to talk about personal topics. Talking about the overall topical framework the following development can be noticed. N introduces her photo collection and as soon as she leaves S starts talking about what she still has to do. After that the topics shifts to shared experience between M and N – they talk about the past. In line 19 S takes the turn and tries to carry the conversation into the future because was not part of M and N's shared experience so she could not join their conversation. With this she does not succeed because M again shifts to the past (l. 20).

The topic shifts abruptly but due to the fact that N leaves the room to get the photos she wanted to show to M. But still the group does not have any problems in changing the subject without any topic overlapping. In line 8 S fills the silence with telling M about what she still has to do in the next few days but in line 10 N takes the turn without taking into consideration that S was still talking about her topic. This rapid topic change is typical for high-involvement style as well as for female talk. N was not scared that she might have intimidated S because she knew that S and M would not mind her interrupting them. In fact, she thought that they were both waiting for her to come back with the photos and did not expect them to have started a new major conversation while she was away. Additional to that N is their host so she automatically takes the leading position in the conversation. By saying “Ja, okay, also.” she wanted to be sure that S and M give her their whole attention so introducing the new topic without hesitance can be found in this case as well. She was not hesitating due to not being sure what to say but to mark that she will now start showing her photos.

Looking at the next point regarding the pacing style which is being used it can be observed that the conversation is fast-paced as it can be heard on the recording. There is simultaneous speech twice (l. 5 and 12) and overlapping due to different reasons. The first overlap can be seen in line 3 where M reacts fast on N's utterance about the photos. With this she expresses her interest by using a certain back-channel-behaviour. Her question “Echt?” is not to be taken literally but can be be regarded as participatory listenership. She expresses her interest by animating N to tell her more about that topic. Another example for overlap can be spotted in line 16 where N wants to extend her disgust about her looks on the photo and M takes the turn creating an overlap.

But due to the reason already given above for M's interference this can also be counted as an cooperative overlap. Several examples can be found for participatory listenership within the dialogue between M and S. In line 8 M reacts on S's explanation of how much she still has to do. By starting her turn with “Also, ich hab mir ja echt viel vorgenommen für die nächsten Tage” she has already marked which kind of reaction she expects from M. This is another proof for cooperative conversation because M underlines her suffering and expresses her sympathy by saying “Oh!” sharing S's feelings about the upcoming work. In line 11 she gives a different back-channel-behaviour. M says “Hm.” to show S that she has realized what she has said. M takes active participation in the next two points. In line 8 she supports S by helping her out with a word. S was looking for the right word to follow “...da musste nur Daten” and therefore was forced to pause. Here M took the initiative and accomplished S's utterance by adding the missing verb . The meaning of M's “Kriegen” is not quite clear. For she repeats the word after S has said it, it is neither a correction nor a helpful participation. The only function her word could possibly have is a puzzled repetition. S says “...meine ganzen Fotos irgendwann mal zu kriegen,...” whereas “kriegen” is not the word one would expect in this case.

Looking at the narrative strategies which have been used in this conversation no real results can be found because this conversation does not consist of any narrative elements. Of course, this point can be questioned because defining a narration is relative. The only part which could perhaps be counted as a narration would be S's speech in line 9. But still, this would be a very special kind of narration because there is no thematical cohesion among the speakers plus it is not about an event which has occurred in the past.

Looking at Tannen's last characterization point for informal talk it can be said that there are no sarcastic elements in this conversation. It would be overall quite untypical for high-involvement style talk to be sarcastic. Irony can also not be found in this all-female talk. Not even jokes can be found here. The reason for this might be that the topic they talk about, the old photos, are funny enough for them. So there is no need for them to be extra funny on top of that. Plus there is no need to be funny in order to build up an image or strengthen social bonds as this might be the case in formal talk.

Looking at the linguistic style which is being used it can ne said that the language they use here is very typical for female speakers. On one hand, they use very simple words but add quite a lot of hedges as in line 3 (“aber auch”), line 8 (“echt viel”), line 9 (“immer so”) and “halt” several times to name only a few. These could again also be found in formal talk. What differs from formal talk would be the lax expressiveness in words like “hab”, “mach” or “wa”. They take advantage of their shared knowledge being aware of not having to pronounce every word the perfect correct way. Another linguistic feature is the loss of grammatical structures. In line11 M says: “Die ganzen Fotos! Weiss ich gar nicht!” with which she wanted to say that she does not remember any of the pictures or can not remember them being taken. “Weiss ich gar nicht” is in this case not a complete sentence but S and N did not have any problems understanding what she meant by that. Swear words have only been used once by N who describes herself in line 16: “Wie scheisse ich da aussehe, oder?...”

In general, it can be said that this conversation is very typical for female informal talk. Many elements of Tannen's characterizations for high-involvement style were found here. For further analyses including the different narrative strategies a longer excerpt of female conversation would be needed .

Shifting the attention to the all-male transcription the differences and common points regarding Deborah Tannen's characterizations will be presented in the following point.

b) All-male informal talk

See transcript b

Context:

A, B and C live together and see each other nearly every day. B has a problem with his printer and calls A and C to help him.

The first thing which hits the observer's eye are the strange noises which are being made during the conversation. Burping and making animal sounds clearly mark the difference to the all-female-conversation before. These acts show how close the friends are. They are not embarrassed by doing such things but want to achieve the opposite aim of strengthening their friendship by doing these things. Showing each other their intimacy and not becoming embarrassed in front of each other might be a way of them expressing their sympathy towards themselves.

Another major point is the fact that they start talking in a funny accent from the beginning of their conversation. This language can be interpreted as a in-group factor shifting into different roles without having to talk about it. They share the same knowledge about the way they speak.

They swap to this kind of Turkish-German accent throughout the whole conversation. Examples for this are: “...krass neue Pumpe” (l. 2), “...isch mach ma...” (l. 4), “ Komm isch mit meine Väter und mach disch Messer.” (l. 16) and “Mach noch mal krass deinen Drucker aus.” (l. 25). The reason why they come together differs from the reason of the first conversation. That is why they have different topics to talk about. The all-male-conversation is impersonal which would be an indicator for high-considerateness talk. The fact that they seem to change into different characters while they speak make it even more impersonal. By this they build up a kind of barrier which would keep the personal subjects away. Considering the gender-specific differences this is not an unexpected point to arise.

Even though some elements of high-considerateness style can be found in this conversation it can be counted as a high-involvement style-talk. As seen in female conversation is fast-paced, there are not many pauses in between these utterances either. They overlap each sometimes as well but their reactions differ from the ones used in the female talk. Instead they try to climb one step higher by saying something even funnier or even louder (line 10 and 25) which is typical for male speakers.

Sarcasm and irony can not be found in this conversation but there is a general joking situation throughout the talk. A, B and C keep taking over the Turkish-German-impersonation-style which takes the seriousness out of their conversation. They adapt their problematic situation into an often impersonated style. This gives them the right to use different words and styles which would not be expected in a conversation about a broken printer.

Looking more closely at the linguistic style which is being used it can be said that the speakers use a quite rough way of speaking. A lot of swear words are being used here. It could be that they had less fears using them because of their language specific-role-play (Turkish-German-impersonation). Words like “Arschloch”, “Arsch” and “dumme Sau” are being said without a bad conscience. Using these words in a friendly context again creates an in-group character. People not knowing the relationship between those men would be wondering how they could be talking like that to without becoming angry at each other. They talk in very short sentences not pronouncing certain words correctly and leaving out the end letters. Slang expressions such as “is nich so prall, wa” would not be used in formal talk. Not to forget the mockingly used clichée expressions which have been adapted from foreigners: “Hä, isch mach disch gleisch Calzone.” and “ Ja wenn du ey.....hey, komm...kommst her Alter, ja, und sachst, ich bin stolz.”.

These expressions did not have any supportive, help- or useful function they were only uttered to entertain the others in the Turkish-speaking frame. The word “krass” can also be found several times in this conversation. No politeness factors can be found here but due to the joking situation many face threatening acts are to be noticed.

Summarizing informal speech among friends

Informal speech among friends is and always will be a lot different then formal talk. The base the speakers have always has to be the same otherwise it would lead to major misunderstanding. Imagining a girl being among the all-male talk (not taking into consideration whether they would actually talk like this in that case). What would she be thinking? She would feel intimidated and maybe even change her opinion about some of the speakers. The fact that she does not share the same humour (the knowledge which utterances to take seriously and which not) would enable her to put certain expressions into the right categories.

On the other hand, would a man be mixed in the all-female group he would also feel strange. Let alone the topics they talk about would make him feel the odd one out. Female informal talk has certain features which mix with formal talk. Using hedges and being polite to each other can not be counted as typical for male talk. The topics may differ from formal talk but the style is close. Whereas typical male informal does not resemble formal talk at all. The strong use of slang and swear words and the building of images (possibly as a face saving act) do not fit the points defining formal talk. Being friendly and supportive can be found in both conversations but in different ways. Women would support each other more directly whereas men do that in a hidden way. The reason for this could be that they want to unconsciously keep up their image, being the strongest which they want to express through their language. Helping each other would contradict this picture and could be counted as too feminine.

In general it can be said that Tannen's characteristics were quite helpful to analyse the two conversations. But only differentiating between high-involvement and high-considerateness style does not seem to be enough.

There undoubtedly are many differences between male and female informal talk which she should have taken into consideration more thoroughly. Comparing informal with formal talk always has to conclude a gender specific analysis.

Literature

Janßen, Hero: Aufzeichnungen VL Pragmatik I, II, II: Braunschweig; 2001ff
Tannen, Deborah: Conversational Style: Analyzing talk among friends. New Jersey: 1984
Givón, T. (Ed.): Conversation. Cognitive, Communicative and Social Perspectives. Philadelphia: 1997

Hiermit erkläre ich, daß ich die vorgelegte Hausarbeit selbständig verfasst habe und keine anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel benutzt habe.

Tannen, Deborah: Conversational Style. Analyzing talk among friends. New Jersey: 1984

Coates, Jennifer: The Construction of a Collaborative Floor in Woman's Friendly Talk in Givón: Conversation.1997: Philadelphia