Shawn Ford
SLS 660: Sociolinguistics
Spring 2002
Note: The following article was written as a project for SLS 660, instructed by Professor Gabriele Kasper of the Department of Second Language Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Please pardon any errors or omissions. Refer to the References section for additional information on the topic.
Ethnography of Communication
A Comparative Analysis of a Casual Conversation and a Formal Interview
INTRODUCTION
In the following paper, I provide a comparative analysis of a casual conversation
and a formal interview based on an approach to ethnography of communication
as discussed by Saville-Troike (1997). After a brief review of related studies
of these two communicative event types, I present the focus and the framework
of the current study. Next, I present a comparative analysis of the two communicative
events using the 11 components of communication compiled by Saville-Troike,
followed by a summary and discussion of some of the findings of the analysis.
I selected these two communicative event types due to their inherent differences
with one another based on contrasts such as formal/ informal, structured/ unstructured,
and prepared/ spontaneous. In addition, these communicative events can be readily
identified as such because of their clear boundaries. The inherent contrasts
that exist coupled with the boundedness of the two communicative events help
facilitate a comparative analysis.
I chose the participants of these communicative events due to our association
with one another as office-mates in the Department of SLS. Because of our close
interaction with one another on a regular basis, we are members of the same
micro-culture. Therefore, I am in an advantageous position to understand and
explain these communication events in which I acted as participant observer.
I recorded both communication events using a small, handheld tape recorded to
assist with my analysis. Immediately afterwards, I wrote brief notes about my
observations of the events, then I listened to the tapes to find likely sections
to transcribe and analyze. I have provided transcriptions of sections of each
of the events in the appendix following this report.
REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES
Much has been written about informal conversations and formal interviews from
the sociolinguistic perspective. In a review of the literature, I found a number
of studies that focus on different aspects of conversational style. Of the studies
I located that focus on interviews, many of them seem to be set in the context
of the work environment in some way. I will briefly discuss several data-based
studies of each of these two communicative event types in terms of the different
focus, approach, and findings of each study.
Tannens (1984) detailed analysis of a multi-participant conversation provides
a great deal of insight into conversational style. Tannan attended, recorded,
and transcribed two and a half hours of conversation during a Thanksgiving dinner
at her friends house. Drawing from work by both Gumperz and Lakoff, she
then analyzed her data focusing on a broad range of speech acts, from questions,
to stories, to jokes, and style features, such as paralinguistic features, pacing,
and repetition, among others. Afterwards, Tannen interviewed the original participants
to ask questions about their intended meanings, their reactions, and what they
were thinking during the event. Her many findings are included in her book based
on her research.
In their 1995 study of English grammatical features, Carter and McCarthy examined
a corpus of data from naturally occurring conversations to explore the pedagogical
implications of discourse analysis. They looked at data from casual conversations,
narratives, service encounters, and language-in-action to find evidence of ellipsis,
left dislocation, reinforcement, and indirect speech. Their main finding is
that even small-scale discourse analyses, if conducted carefully and thoroughly,
may provide teachers with valuable pedagogical information. They base their
finding on analyses that shows that many grammatical features are not evident
in the written mode or on restricted genres and registers of spoken language
(p. 154), which are common sources for many discourse analysis studies aimed
at influencing pedagogy.
Examining previously recorded data, Schegloff (2000) conducted an empirical
study based on conversation analysis to analyze the conversational feature of
overlap. He focused his research on the contribution of overlap in the organization
of turn taking in conversations. Schegloff was particularly interested in the
problems and features associated with overlapping talk, strategies that participants
use to handle overlap situations, and how overlapping talk organizes turn taking
in conversation. The result of his research is his theory of an overlap
resolution device, a set of practices that help deal with situations of
overlap and assist in regulating turn taking.
With regards to interview analyses, Gumperz (1982, 1992) has conducted a number
of studies in Britain investigating interethnic communication difficulties in
interview situations. In his 1982 study of a counseling interview aimed at addressing
communication difficulties in the workplace, Gumperz conducted a conversation
analysis to determine why communication problems arose in the interview session.
In this particular event, the interviewer was a native English speaker and the
interviewee was an ESL speaker from Pakistan. Gumperz speculated at the outset
that communication breakdowns result from linguistic and socio-cultural differences.
Through his detailed analysis of the interview event, Gumperz argues that socio-cultural
knowledge highly influences the linguistic choices and interpretations that
are made; thus, socio-cultural differences are the source of intercultural communication
problems.
Gumperz 1992 paper examined interviews that took place at an adult education
institution between native English-speaking interviewers and four interviewees
who were native speakers of various North Indian languages. The interviewees
had applied to the institution to gain job training. Using a conversation analysis
approach, Gumperz looked at the different ways in which linguistic and socio-cultural
knowledge interact to produce communicative outcomes. In this study, he also
concludes that problems arise in intercultural interview settings not because
of linguistic differences as much as differences in socially motivated contextualization
conventions that govern the interaction patterns of interviews.
Clayman (1992) analyzed the discourse of television news-interviews to examine
the strategies that reporters utilize to remain neutral in interview situations.
He focused on Goffmans concept of footing, which in interaction
refers to the position and voice from which one produces ones own speech.
Through his analysis, Clayman describes the different uses for footing in interview
situations and provides examples of how interviewers go about changing their
footing during the interview event. He concludes that his research has implications
for the maintenance of neutrality in the field of journalism.
FOCUS AND FRAMEWORK OF STUDY
Having reviewed several studies somewhat relevant to this report, I would like
to briefly discuss the focus and framework of my current study. Using Saville-Troikes
(1997) compiled list of components of communication, I first will conduct a
comparative ethnographic analysis of my two communicative events. I will focus
my comparison initially on similarities and differences that may be found between
components of the two events, then I will examine each event to see how individual
components may influence one another. If patterns emerge that show similar relationships
between components in both events, then this is where I will focus my discussion.
COMPARISON OF DATA SOURCES
To facilitate comparison of the two different communication events, descriptive
data of each event is arranged in Table 1 along the 11 components of communication
as discussed by Saville-Troike (1997):
Table 1: Components of Communication
Component
|
Communicative Event #1
|
Communicative Event #2
|
Genre- | Casual lunchtime conversation | Formal structured interview |
Participants- | S- researcher, 35, E-A, male; Z- focus of study, 30, E-A female; A- participant, 20s, E-A female; Office-mates and friends. |
Z- focus of study, 30, E-A female; A- participant, 20s, E-A female; Office-mates and friends. |
Message form- | American-English only used: S- U.S. West Coast dialect, Z- U.S. West Coast dialect, A- U.S. Mid-west dialect. Facial expressions and body language also used. |
American-English only used: S- U.S. West Coast dialect, Z- U.S. West Coast dialect, A- U.S. Mid-west dialect. Some facial expressions used. |
Setting- | Small conference room, UH Manoa campus, 2/28/02, 12:15 p.m., during lunch | Small conference room, UH Manoa, 2/28/02, 12:45 p.m., after lunch |
Purpose- | Personal conversation among friends | To understand another GAs job position and experience |
Topic- | Personal experience narrative of a scary incident | Current GA-ship work assignment- supplied questions |
Key- | Serious | Serious |
Act sequence- | Conversation centered around Zs narrative followed by A-Z-S alternation of questions, confirmations, and comprehension checks; overlap observed | Structured, rule-governed, Q&A (A-Z-A-Z ), no overlap observed |
Rules for interaction- | Participation, comprehension checking, questioning to continue conversation, confirmations | Q&A turn-taking interview rules, wait for pauses and completion of utterances. |
Norms of interpretation- | Knowledge of U.H. Manoa and Moore Hall, some personal knowledge of each other. | Knowledge of formal interviews, some knowledge about department structure, knowledge about SLS field. |
With major descriptive data components arranged
in this fashion, it is now possible to carry out a systematic comparative analysis
of the components of communication of the two communicative event styles in
question. Examples from the data sets that help illustrate the analysis will
also be included where possible.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
The two communicative events that are the focus of this paper differ fundamentally
with regards to genre. Communicative event #1 is a casual lunchtime conversation,
and as such has many features associated with spontaneous talk among friends.
In contrast, communicative event #2 is a formal structured interview with its
own set of distinct features. Differences between the features of these two
communication event styles become more apparent as the comparative analysis
of their components continues.
The participants in these two communication events are all friends as well as
office mates in a university department. I sat in communication event #1 as
a participant (S) but only observed in communication event #2. The other two
participants, Zoe (Z) and Alice (A), maintained very similar roles in these
two events, with Z basically telling her story and A responding and asking questions.
Both A and Z are European-American (E-A), middle-class females, 26 and 30 years
old respectively. I am the only male of the three participants, also E-A, from
a working class background, and the oldest at 35 years old.
Regarding message forms used, the only language spoken in the two communication
events is American-English; however, the specific dialects differ among the
three participants. S and Z both speak some variation of a US West Coast dialect,
with the dialect of S formed in the San Francisco Bay area and the dialect of
Z formed in the Northwest-Seattle area. Therefore, their dialects differ just
slightly. The major dialectal difference among the three participants can be
heard in the speech of A, who speaks a Mid-Western US dialect. Although their
dialects all differ at least slightly, there seem to be no communication features
related to dialectal differences. In addition to spoken language, the only other
message forms observed during the two communication events are facial expressions
used by all of the participants and body language used by at least one of the
participants.
The setting of the two communication events is identical except for time. Both
events take place during the lunch hour and were recorded 30 minutes apart on
February 28, 2002, between 12:15 and 1:00 p.m. Also, both events take place
in a very small conference room in Moore Hall, adjacent to the office where
the participants work. Unlike most rooms in Moore Hall, the thermostat controlling
the air conditioning in this room has been adjusted higher, resulting in a moderate,
comfortable atmosphere.
Considering the communication components of topic, key, and purpose, the two
events are similar in that the key of both was of a serious nature. However,
the key of each event seems to be governed by different components. The serious
key of the casual conversation seems to be controlled by the serious nature
of the topic, whereas the serious key of the interview seems to by controlled
by the genre of the event itself. Also, the events differ in topic and purpose.
Communicative event #1 is a personal conversation among friends in which one
of the participants relays a personal experience narrative about a scary incident
that has recently happened to her. In contrast, the purpose of communicative
event #2 as a formal, structured interview is to better understand another Graduate
Assistants job position and experience by means of asking a set of supplied
questions about the GAs current work assignment.
The communication event components of act sequence and rules for interaction
seem to both be associated with the phenomenon of turn taking, which helps distinguish
the two communicative events apart. In the friendly conversation, while the
event is centered around the telling of a story, the participants contribute
randomly to the development and continuation of the conversation. There seems
to be neither an explicit nor an implicit order for turn taking associated with
this event. Consequently, several instances of speech overlap are observed,
which result in little if any breakdown of communication. In addition, there
seem to be no implicit rules regarding the type of speech act that each participant
contributes to the event, evidenced by the use of questions, confirmations,
comprehension checks, statements, and expansions throughout the conversation.
However, in the formal interview, a very different pattern for turn taking emerges.
Since the communication event centers around the question and answer format
associated with interviews, turn taking appears to be rigidly controlled by
implicit rules governing act sequence. As a result, not a single instance of
overlap is observed in the entire communication event. This may also be due
in part to additional implicit rules governing interaction. In contrast to the
personal conversation where very few pauses between turns can be found, almost
every turn in the interview is clearly marked by a completion of utterance and
a brief pause before the next turn begins.
With regards to the final component of communication, norms of interpretation,
similarities as well as differences may also be found between the two communicative
events. The events seem similar in that they both require certain amounts of
knowledge about the topic of conversation by all of the participants involved
for communication to progress in the way that it does. Communicative event #1
requires all three participants to know something about the university environment,
Moore Hall, and personal information about each other. Even though certain knowledge
is not shared between the two participants in communicative event #2, given
the nature and topic of the formal interview, the participants still need to
have some shared knowledge about the structure of their university department
and about the field of Second Language Studies. Where the two communicative
events seem to differ most regarding norms of interpretation may be found in
the amount of knowledge necessary of the specific communicative event in which
the participants are engaged at the given time.
SUMMARY
From the previous comparative analysis of the components of communication of
the two communicative events, many similarities, differences, and influences
can be found, even within individual components. To further the comparison of
these specific communicative events, I will select some of the components of
communication that I found most interesting and discuss them in more detail
by examining the ways in which the components affect each other. I will focus
my discussion on topic and key, and turn taking in act sequence and rules for
interaction.
DISCUSSION
Topic and Key
Although the topics of the communicative events differ greatly, the events do
share a similarity regarding this component. In both events, the topic is explicitly
stated by participants with different roles. I am not surprised that this would
be the case with the interview. As Wolfson (1976) implies, the question-and-answer
structure of interviews follows from topics introduced by the interviewer at
the outset of the interview; the subject has no control over the introduction
of topics. Turns 1 through 4 from the interview event highlight this point:
1. A: ok, thanks Z for sitting down and um talking with me about the /project/
2. Z: sure
3. A: um, so some of the things I wanted to ask you was, uh, how long have you
worked here at the /office/?
4. Z: Ive been working here since the end of May
However, the explicitness of the topic and the manner in which it is introduced
in the casual conversation is very surprising to me. The main topic of communicative
event #1 is introduced by the subject (Z) in a variation of a story round (Tannen,
1984) as shown in the following turn sequence:
1. S: so thats
thats all Ive got to say
2. *laughing*
3. A: ok, ok Forrest
4. Z: thats a pretty good story
5. *laughing*
6. A: made my day
7. S: youre supposed to be talking
8. Z: yeah
9. *laughing*
10. S: and Ive been talking to you constantly
11. Z: I ooh, I, oh, I have a scary story
Upon completion of his humorous story, S reminds Z that she is the one who is
supposed to be talking. Z then responds by presenting the topic of a scary
story (original, stressed emphasis) to tell. Thus, the topic of the event
is explicitly stated, in this case by the subject.
Another similar component shared by the two communicative events is their serious
key. However, I believe that the seriousness in each is the result of different
factors. In communicative event #1, the serious key is the result of the topic
proposed by Z at the outset of the conversation:
11. Z: I ooh, I, oh, I have a scary story
This statement immediately grabs the attention of the other participants and
forces the event key from a humorous tone into a serious tone as evidenced by
the turns immediately preceding and following turn 11 (refer to Appendix 2).
In addition, the stress placement on scary serves as a contextualization cue
(Gumperz, 1992, as discussed in Gumperz, 1996) to provide contrast with the
previous speech act and help move the conversation onto another topic with a
much different key. In contrast, the serious key of communicative event #2 is
set at the very beginning of the interview:
1. A: ok, thanks /deleted/ for sitting down and um talking with me about the
/deleted/
2. Z: sure
3. A: um, so some of the things I wanted to ask you was, uh, how long have you
worked here at the /deleted/?
4. Z: Ive been working here since the end of May
Due to the formal nature of As opening comment in turn 1 and the immediate
conformity by both participants to the question-and-answer interview format,
beginning with turn 3 and continuing throughout the entire communicative event
(see Appendix 2), the key is serious from the outset of the event. The main
difference seems to be that the serious key of the casual conversation is determined
by the topic of the event while the serious key of the formal interview is determined
by the event itself.
Turn Taking in Act Sequence and Rules for Interaction
Perhaps the most striking difference that I found while analyzing the two communicative
events concerns turn taking. Within my data sets, the communication feature
of turn taking seems to be related to the components of act sequence and rules
for interaction. In fact, it appears that the rules for interaction influence
the act sequence, which then affects the turn taking that occurs within each
communicative event. This finding may become evident when the events are examined
more closely.
The rules for interaction in both of the events seem to be implicit yet known
and adhered to by all of the participants. In the data from communicative event
#1, the following turn sequence shows a few of the rules for interaction implicit
in a casual conversation of this kind:
40. Z: I know, I just /unintelligible/
you know, I tried to it make sure
it wasnt the wind
but its a big block and there was no wind
in
that doorway, so it freaked me out and I went home
41. A: yeah
42. S: you didnt call security?
43. A: yeah /unintelligible/
44. Z: right
45. A: didnt think of that, but thats like a Id be scared
/unintelligible/ call security
46. Z: well but what are they gonna do? I mean
47. A: youre not kidding
48. Z: you know security here
49. S: yeah, well
50. Z: theyre not really
51. A: security?
A casual conversation such as the one in this excerpt requires all of the participants
to contribute in some way to the conversation. Each participant contributes
at least twice to the event in these 12 turns. S contributes once to the conversation,
in turn 42, by means of asking a question to Z to continue the conversation.
This question results in immediate sequential confirmations by both A and Z
in turns 43 and 44 to show their continued involvement in the event. Actually,
the response by Z in turn 44 could be interpreted as a sarcastic reaction to
the question posed; however, given the intonation of the response, I interpret
it as confirmation that the question has been received and an answer is being
formulated. The next response given in answer to the question asked by S is
then provided by A in turn 45, which is immediately followed by another question
asked this time by Z in turn 46. Thus, the question originally asked by S is
never directly answered, yet the conversation continues without a breakdown
in communication.
One result of this kind of communicative event with its particular rules for
interaction that produce spontaneous contribution to conversation is that there
is no consistent act sequence. This may also be seen in the previous excerpt,
where the event moves from an answer to a question in turn 40, to a confirmation
in the next turn, to a question in turn 42, followed by sequential confirmations,
a statement in turn 45, then a rhetorical question/ comprehension check in turn
46. In the span of seven turns, the participants contribute six different kinds
of speech acts to the conversation.
This inconsistency of act sequence may then affect the turn taking sequence
of the communicative event, which is also inconsistent. Although the communicative
event is centered around a narrative given by Z, the main part of the story,
presented in turns 13 through 27 (see Appendix 1), is interrupted by the other
two participants seven different times through questions, confirmations, and
comprehension checks. Another speech feature that arises due to this casual
conversational style is that of overlap as discussed by Schegloff (2000). This
feature is evident in the following excerpt of five turns (shown with approximate
timing of turns):
33. S: yeah, you should be able to
34. Z: if it should have a manual
35. A: I havent looked but I bet it does
36. S: you should be able to
37. Z: to lock and unlock it?
In this sequence, S begins a turn in continuation of the current topic (turn
33), and both A and Z insert their own comments (turns 34 and 35) to the same
topic while S is still speaking, producing a period of overlap. S then persists
in making his point by projecting the thrust of his original turn (Schegloff,
2000) in turn 36 while Z is still speaking (turns 35 and 37), which produces
another period of overlap. All three participants show a persistence to complete
their utterances without any acknowledgement of the overlap or any recognizable
consequences (Schegloff, 2000).
In contrast to the rules for interaction and the patterns of act sequence and
turn taking found in the casual conversation, communicative event #2 appears
quite different. To begin with, common rules for interaction implicit in a formal
interview setting seem to be inextricably linked to the nature of this type
of communicative event. Indeed, a successful interview with the traditional
question-and-answer format requires that the participants involved share common
norms and practices about the event (Kasper, in press). Some of the rules for
interaction apparent in communicative event #2 are adherence to the question-and-answer
format of interviews, waiting for pauses in speech as a signal that the other
participants turn is complete before beginning a turn, and allowing the
other participant to completely finish a turn before beginning another turn.
This pattern may be seen in the next selection:
3. A: um, so some of the things I wanted to ask you was, uh, how long have you
worked here at the /office/?
4. Z: Ive been working here since the end of May
5. A: last year?
6. Z: and, um, work picked up in June when some other members of the team came
along
7. A: and, so it youve been now its February and youre gonna
continue working until?
8. Z: until June
its a one year appointment
9. A: ok
um
and could you tell me how you got your position here at
the /office/?
10. Z: right
ok
um
The question-and-answer pattern is established by the participants in turns
3 and 4 and continues in this manner throughout the entire event. Adherence
to this structure shows that the participants share the same implicit knowledge
of the interview event. In addition, a clear pause can be detected at the end
of each turn before either A asks another question or Z gives an answer. The
pause after each question by A may be the result of Z formulating an answer,
whereas the pause after each reply by Z may be due to A making sure that Z has
completed her turn. The overall result of these first two rules is that each
participant completely finishes her turn before the other begins a new turn;
therefore, in this five-minute communicative event of 22 turns, there is not
a single instance of overlap. This fact is very interesting in comparison to
communicative event #1 and shows that the implicit rules for interaction in
an interview event are very strong.
In the formal interview, it appears that the rules for interaction directly
influence act sequence and turn taking, even more so than in the casual conversation
event. Due to the fact that one of the rules governing interaction in this type
of event is the question-and-answer structure, act sequence and turn taking
strictly follow this structure over the course of the event after the introductory
remarks of turns 1 and 2 (please refer to Appendix 2). From beginning until
end, A asks a question, and Z gives an answer; A never provides additional comments,
and Z never asks questions. Thus, it is possible to see that in both the formal
interview and the casual conversation, there is a relation between rules for
interaction, act sequence, and turn taking. This finding may seem somewhat matter-of-fact,
but I was surprised to discover this when analyzing transcriptions of the two
communicative events.
CONCLUSION
Through this ethnography of communication exercise, it is possible to compare
and contrast specific features that may be found in two distinctly different
communicative events. It is very interesting to analyze how differently people
use language to achieve certain objectives. As a result of this exercise, I
have grown to appreciate the usefulness of communication analysis and understand
how it may contribute to a more thorough understanding of language use in society.
In my own ethnographic fieldwork of college-level generation 1.5 students that
I am currently conducting for my scholarly paper, I am considering the possibility
of also gathering data that I may use for an ethnography of communication portion
of either my paper or for a future journal article. I believe that a micro-analysis
of some of the same speech features in the same communicative event types as
this current study may help shed more light on the issues involved with educating
generation 1.5 students here in Hawaii and across the U.S.
REFERENCES
Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. (1995). Grammar and the spoken language. Applied
Linguistics, 14, 141-158.
Clayman, S.E. (1992). Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of
news interview discourse. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.) Talk at work:
Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 163-198). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gumperz, J.J. (1992). Interviewing in intercultural situations. In P. Drew &
J. Heritage (Eds.) Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp.
302-327). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J.J. (1996). The linguistic and cultural relativity of conversational
inference. In J.J. Gumperz & Levinson, S.C. (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic
relativity (pp. 374-406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K.R. (under review). Research methods in interlanguage
pragmatics. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Saville-Troike, M. (1997). The ethnographic analysis of communicative events.
In N. Coupland & A. Jaworsky (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: A reader (pp. 126-144).
New York: St. Martins Press.
Schegloff, E.A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking
for conversation. Language in Society, 29, 1-63.
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood,
NY: Ablex Publishing.
Wolfson, N. (1997). Speech events and natural speech. In N. Coupland & A.
Jaworsky (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: A reader (pp. 116-125). New York: St. Martins
Press.
APPENDIX 1
Transcript #1: Casual lunchtime conversation
Recorded: 2/28/02, 12:15 p.m.
Approximate length of conversation: 345
Description of setting: three friends sitting together around a table
in an empty conference room eating lunch.
Participants: S- researcher; Z- focus of current study; A- additional
conversant
*begin*
1. S: so thats
thats all Ive got to say
2. *laughing*
3. A: ok, ok Forrest
4. Z: thats a pretty good story
5. *laughing*
6. A: made my day
7. S: youre supposed to be talking
8. Z: yeah
9. *laughing*
10. S: and Ive been talking to you constantly
11. Z: I ooh, I, oh, I have a scary story
12. *cough*
13. Z: last night, I was in the bathroom
and it was maybe nine oclock
or something
14. S: here or at
15. Z: yeah, here *pointing in the direction of the bathroom*
and I went
over to the restroom and I was, um, doing something with my hair in the mirror
16. A: with a cockroach?
17. Z: uhn, no
way scarier
I heard someone pulling away the, um, peg
that keeps the door open
theres a wooden block *making shape with
fingers of one hand* in the girls restroom that keeps the *lowering fingers
still in shape towards the floor*
18. S: uhm
19. Z: door open
and someone pulled it away
and so I yelled out, hey!
cause I was scared shitless
I was like, why is somebody trying to close
the door? its nine oclock, so its not midnight its not
time to lock up yet cause they come around like twelve fifteen to lock up
and
I went out there nobody, you know, cause you can see that I always look in the,
uh, reflection of the glass because theres a glass partition and you can
see if somebodys there when y-youre in the doorway
20. A: yeah
21. Z: you can look out and you can see if somebodys
22. A: right
23. Z: next to you
24. A: the wall
25. Z: and I didnt see anybody so I came out, and I looked all around
upstairs there was this guy that, um, was walking past the elevator like he
was going to the mens restroom, but
I was really suspicious of him
here because he had this big-ole smirk on his face
and, um, and I, I, I
I dont know what he was I havent seen him before
26. A: you havent seen him before? oh great
27. Z: but he wasnt he wasnt scroungey or anything like that he
was in an aloha shirt and slacks and stuff he looked professional enough
but
the the grin he had on his face was just I it was too weird
and, um so
I dont know what happened it I
28. S: someone did pull the
29. Z: yeah, the block was pulled out
and
30. A: but they couldnt lock you in or anything
31. Z: mmm
wouldnt hope they could, uhun-hun
32. A: I mean, you can open it from the inside cant you?
33. S: yeah, you should /begin talking all at once/ be able to
34. Z: if it should have a manual
35. A: I havent looked but I bet it does
36. S: you should be able to?
37. Z: to lock and unlock it /end talking all at once/
38. Z: yeah, um
39. A: but why would they do that?
40. Z: I know, I just /unintelligible/
you know, I tried to it make sure
it wasnt the wind
but its a big block and there was no wind
in
that doorway, so it freaked me out and I went home
41. A: yeah
42. S: you didnt call security?
43. A: yeah /unintelligible/
44. Z: right
45. A: didnt think of that, but thats like a Id be scared
/unintelligible/ call security
46. Z: well but what are they gonna do? I mean
47. A: youre not kidding
48. Z: you know security here
49. S: yeah, well
50. Z: theyre not really
51. A: security?
52. Z: they dont really care
thats my impression
they
dont
they dont
53. A: thats its weird though like why would he do that? like
54. Z: I know! *clear throat* it doesnt make any sense to me
55. Z: it I mean it really was weird
and I thought
56. A: thats great
maybe hes just going around closing all
of the womens doors
57. Z: I dont know
my my first thing, cause you know how I had my
my story with Elizabeth when she died and Im /unintelligible/ you know
I always look out for signs from her
and so I though it was Elizabeth
I
did
but, um, I dont understand why she would do that
unless
she was trying to tell me to get
out of there
so I always trust my
instincts with omens
58. A: hmm
59. Z: so, I left
uh, I, Im not sure what was going on
60. A: thats really scary
61. Z: yeah, it was
62. A: yeah
APPENDIX 2
Transcript #2- Formal structured interview
Recorded: 2/28/02, 12:45 p.m.
Approximate length of conversation: 510
Description of setting: subject and interviewer at a table in an empty
conference room with researcher observing. Interviewer was supplied a set list
of questions to ask. Subject was only informed the topic of the interview and
was not given questions beforehand to prepare.
Participants: Z- focus of current study; A- interviewer
*begin*
1. A: ok, thanks Z for sitting down and um talking with me about the /project/
2. Z: sure
3. A: um, so some of the things I wanted to ask you was, uh, how long have you
worked here at the /office/?
4. Z: Ive been working here since the end of May
5. A: last year?
6. Z: and, um, work picked up in June when some other members of the team came
along
7. A: and, so it youve been now its February and youre gonna
continue working until?
8. Z: until June
its a one year appointment
9. A: ok
um
and could you tell me how you got your position here at
the /office/?
10. Z: right
ok
um
11. A: *cleared throat*
12. Z: /professor/ had sent out an email to the /department/ list serve
um
eliciting people that would be interested in a /deleted/ project that was funded
by an /deleted/ grant that she had received
I was very interested in the
project
her announcement was looking for people that could either be teachers
of /language/ or /language/ or people that could be teaching assistants
I
wasnt really interested in being either one of those, but I felt that
I wanted to be a part of the project and, uh, could, um, perhaps get into something
behind the scenes and do what I actually ended up doing
13. A: um
so what /office/ projects are you currently involved in um
could
you in with that last question
um
can you explain more about what
it is that you actually do then on this one?
14. Z: uhm-hum
so the project is called the /deleted/ project
and,
its a /deleted/ project thats been designed by myself and several
others
to, include theories that we feel are important for building on
academic strategies in a high school setting for /deleted/ students
um
the
grant
stipulates that our population should be /deleted/ and that our goals will be
academic
um, specifically, were trying to build academic skills through
English as well as their heritage language and were trying to foster community
ties, were trying to make connections with the community and drawing
on
their resources
another notion thats very important to us is the,
um
notion that
um, language as resource
and that we can draw
on the students heritage language and their experiences
and
compliment
the academic needs with these experiences and their current knowledge what they
bring with them to the classroom
15. A: and your specific role in this project?
16. Z: Im the evaluator
17. A: *cleared throat* with these?
18. Z: for the program, so we have, um
several different components, we
have
curriculum
director
who, oversees al-everything pertaining
to the curriculum and who, um, principally provides us with materials for the
curriculum development
we have, ahm, three teachers, one for /language/,
two for /language/ and myself as an evaluator and then everything is overseen
by /professor/ who is the administrator
we also have a liaison between
the high school and
the, um, and the university
but my role is the
evaluator and I evaluate not only the program
as a whole but also the teachers
and students, umm, for objectiveness of the curriculum interests and the curriculum
attitudinal changes
and, beyond that, I look at
the contacts of the
site, um the administration of the s-high school, the academy within this which
w-we work in
the, um receptions that were receiving from the teachers
that are involved in the academy but, ah, um, you know, are outside of our program
u-looking
at
artifacts collecting artifacts looking at rhetoric uh-regarding language
um,
Pidgin, /language/, Hawaiian, whatever, unconfined, uh, drawing on the resources
of counselors, pool, club, extra-curricular activities /unintelligible/
19. A: * cleared throat*
20. Z: what support there is for /language/
21. A: hm
um, so, how do you feel that you have been able to contribute
to /project/ and I know that you have explained what you what you do but how
do you feel about what youre doing and contributing to this department?
22. Z: uhm-hum
well
one of
uh I think I contribute a lot of different
things but, one of the things that I bring
to
the program is perhaps,
um, not something that most people would say but, Im known as the cheerleader
for our program because Im very positive
Im very
enthusiastic
about what were doing and it means a great deal to me
contents (c) 2001 Shawn Ford/ Webb-Ed Press
sford@hawaii.edu