Conversational Closings

Each form of communication, from the nightly newscast to the everyday conversation, has its own internal structure. A speech, for example, can be divided into a beginning, a middle, and an end, each of which does something differ­ent. In this section, we’ll illustrate the importance of structure by taking a brief look at conversational endings.

Endings play an important role in conversation. They signal that interac­tion is about to wind down, establish a sense of closure, reassure participants that the interaction has been successful, and establish conditions for future in­teraction. Often they also contain specific directions for future behavior on the part of both speaker and listener.

Because walking away abruptly the instant talk ceases is unconscionably rude, the end of a conversation is signaled in advance. A statement about up­coming commitments (“I suppose I should get back to work soon”) or a com­ment on the interaction (“I’m so glad we could get together”) lets others know the conversation is drawing to an end and establishes closure. A good conversa­tional ending also contains a statement of concern and goodwill (“It was great to see you”) as well as a brief summary of the conversation (“Now, don’t worry; things will work out”). Finally, it’s a good idea to mention future contact (“I’ll call you”). As Robin Lakoff points out, “Farewells stress the speaker’s unwilling­ness to depart, offering it as a necessity imposed by cruel circumstances rather than the speaker's desire. We say, ‘Gotta go!’ not, ‘Wanna go!’”

Endings are equally important in other forms of discourse. In courtroom communication, for example, the summation is a lawyer’s last chance to im­press the jury; it is here that he or she will summarize arguments and make the strongest appeals. Conclusions are also vital in public speeches, because a weak ending can undermine the entire effect of a speech.

Yet endings are only one part of discourse structure. To be truly competent communicators, we must understand the entire structure of a given kind of dis­course. (Beginnings, for example, are another important part of messages.) Al­though some forms of discourse are structured and formulaic and others are open and spontaneous, all must be well organized to be effective.

Guidelines for Understanding Discourse

To communicate successfully, we must master many types of discourse. We must know the purpose, rules, and stylistic properties of each type, and we must be aware of hidden assumptions and unintended effects. To become more aware of the way a specific form of discourse works, we should ask ourselves the four sets of questions listed below.

1. What is the purpose of this discourse?

What do I and my partners hope to achieve? Do we agree about the purpose of this interaction? What would mark the success of this discourse, and what would mark its failure?

2. What rules regulate this discourse?

What speech acts are expected of each participant? What speech acts should participants avoid?

3. What are the normal style and structure of this discourse?

What specialized language choices are called for? How does one begin and end interaction? How might meanings here differ from those elsewhere?

4. What are the effects of engaging in this form of discourse?

What values and assumptions are presupposed in this discourse? Do I agree with these beliefs? Can this discourse be used to manipulate or dominate? How?

Language and Social Identity

Although modes of discourse dictate certain language choices, they do not com­pletely control communication. Not every teacher or public speaker or lawyer communicates in the same way. In this section we will look at how group memberships affect language use, beginning with one of our most important group identities: gender.

Genderlects: When Men’s and Women’s Talk Differs

As we’ve seen, a dialect is a local or regional variation of a language. Recently, a number of scholars have argued that men and women use different dialects. These scholars have coined the term genderlect to refer to linguistic variations based on gender. In You Just Don’t Understand, linguist Deborah Tannen dis­cusses some of the ways genderlects can lead to miscommunication.

Let’s begin with a few examples. On the way to visit friends in another part of the city, George and Demy get lost. Demy suggests they stop and ask the way, but George refuses. He is uncomfortable asking for help and believes there’s no guarantee that a stranger will give accurate information anyway. He’d prefer to drive around until he finds the way. This doesn’t make sense to Demy, who isn't at all embarrassed about asking for information and believes that anyone who doesn't know where he or she is should admit it.

Martha can’t wait until Denis gets home from work so that they can talk about the day. As Denis enters the house, Martha begins a barrage of questions. What did he do? How was his presentation? Where did he and his colleagues go for lunch, and what did everyone order? She is interested in every detail, and his evasive answers hurt her. Denis, on the other hand, feels overwhelmed by Martha’s “third degree” about things he barely noticed.

Deborah Tannen believes that misunderstandings like these occur because men and women grow up in different cultures. Women’s culture, she believes, stresses intimacy and connection, whereas men’s culture values autonomy and individual achievement. These orientations affect men’s and women’s topics of conversation, their conversational styles, and their interpretations of one an­other's meanings.