b.The Delimitation of Involvement as a Linguistic Category

b.The Delimitation of Involvement as a Linguistic Category

b.i)Introduction

The concept of involvement is very broad in scope and although it has been described in the relevant literature, there have been few attempts to give its precise definition and delimitation (cf. Tannen 1985; Besnier 1994; Chafe 1982). Besnier (1994:279) points out that it was originally mentioned as a category in interactional sociolinguistics and in discourse analysis. The following parts of the thesis will explain the approach of these linguistic disciplines to this phenomenon.

b.ii)Involvement in Interactional Sociolinguistics

Involvement in interactional sociolinguistics focuses on “conversationalists’ willingness and ability to initiate and sustain verbal interaction. Involvement is seen as a prerequisite to the success of any conversational encounter, and is rendered possible by the presence of a shared body of linguistic and socio-cultural knowledge among conversationalists” (Besnier 1994:279).

The main representative of interactional sociolinguistics is the linguistic anthropologist John Gumperz (1982, 1992, 2001), who merged the findings of linguistics, anthropology, pragmatics, and conversation analysis. He describes interactional sociolinguistics as “an approach to discourse that has its origin in the search for replicable methods of qualitative analysis that account for our ability to interpret what participants intend to convey in everyday communicative practice” (Gumperz 2001:215).

His work on discourse strategies claims that “once involved in a conversation, both speaker and hearer must actively respond to what transpires by signalling involvement, either directly through words or indirectly through gestures or similar nonverbal signals. The response, moreover, should relate to what we think the speaker intends, rather than to the literal meanings of the words used.” (Gumperz 1982:1).

Furthermore, Gumperz states that “understanding presupposes conversational involvement” (1982:2). If conversational involvement is to be preserved, linguistic and sociocultural knowledge among interlocutors must be shared. This kind of knowledge is internal to interaction, it constitutes an integral part of interaction itself. Additionally, Gumperz shows that involvement in a conversational exchange is not only a matter of passive understanding. Participants in a conversation should be able not only to decode the meaning of an utterance but also to anticipate its development (1982:2-3). He also points out that “almost all conversational data derive from verbal interaction in socially and linguistically homogenous groups. There is a tendency to take for granted that conversational involvement exists, that interlocutors are cooperating, and that interpretive conventions are shared” (1982:4). However, Gumperz emphasizes the importance of employing cross-cultural communication as the basis of research into interactional practices because it tends to be neglected although it may reveal surprising facts.

When communicating, interlocutors accompany their utterances by verbal and non-verbal signals to connect what is said with “knowledge acquired through past experience, in order to retrieve the presuppositions they must rely on to maintain conversational involvement and assess what is intended” (Gumperz 1992:230). Gumperz labels this as “contextualization”. Contextualization relies on “contextualization cues” that include prosody, paralinguistic signs, choice of lexical forms, and code choice.

Contextualization cues are employed and perceived by speakers habitually and automatically rather than consciously and serve to foreground certain lexical forms or phonological strings. They are not talked about directly, and for that reason they must be examined in context rather than on a theoretical level (Gumperz 1982:131).

In this connection, Tannen (1984:xvi) states that whereas speakers aim at conveying the meaning and attaining their interactional goals during a conversational exchange, they are judged by their conversational partners on the basis of the use of contextualization cues. “When expectations regarding the use of contextualization cues are relatively similar, utterances are likely to be interpreted more or less as intended. But when such expectations are relatively different, speakers’ intentions and abilities are likely to be misevaluated” (Tannen 1984:xvi-xvii).

Interactional sociolinguistics deals not only with the way how meaning is conveyed and negotiated, and with methods of achieving interactional goals in communication. It also focuses on “the inherent linguistic and cultural diversity of today’s communicative environments” (Gumperz 2001:218).

Additionally, Gumperz claims that interactional sociolinguistics attempts to find the way how to link two differing theoretical approaches: one sees the nature of diversity in the “macrosocietal conditions, political and economic forces, and relationships of power in which they were acquired” (Gumperz 2001:218), the other is a constructivist approach asserting that since our social worlds are formed in interaction, first of all it is necessary to inquire into the way how interactive processes work, and then we can deal with diversity. Owing to the fact that these two approaches differ in what to consider as relevant data and in the methods of analysis, the results of their research are incomparable. Thus, interactional sociolinguistics tries to join these approaches by concentrating on “communicative practice as the everyday-world site where societal and interactive forces merge” (Gumperz 2001:218).

Goffman was another researcher who made a contribution to the development of involvement within the framework of interactional sociolinguistics. Since he is a sociolinguist, his primary attention is devoted to social interaction and interactive processes rather than to language as such. His concept of involvement is, therefore, based on the social organization of this phenomenon. As he puts it: “To be engaged in an occasioned activity means to sustain some kind of cognitive and affective engrossment in it, some mobilization of one’s psychological resources, in short, it means to be involved in it” (1963:36).

In his study devoted to the description and analysis of behaviour in public places (1963), Goffman examines various social events and their effect on creating and displaying involvement. He points out that when analyzing “situational properties” it is essential to examine “the social regulations that determine the individual’s conceptions and allocations of involvement” (1963:36). Goffman understands involvement as “the capacity of an individual to give, or withhold from giving, his concerted attention to some activity at hand - a solitary task, a conversation, a collaborative work effort. It implies a certain admitted closeness between the individual and the object of involvement, a certain overt engrossment on the part of the one who is involved” (1963:43).

This section describes involvement as it has been viewed by interactional sociolinguistics. The following section will deal with the concept of involvement as described and understood within the framework of discourse analysis.