Response Cries

Response Cries Goffman, 1978

Here, I believe, is a crucial feature of human communication. Behavior and appearance are ritualized-in the ethological sense-through such ethologically- definedprocessesasexaggeration,stereotyping,standardizationof intensity,loosen- ing of contextual requirements etc.

Also, consider “natural index”

Although almost every kind of mayhem can be committed in social situations, one class of breaches bears specificallyon social situations as such, i.e. on the social organization common to face-to-face gatherings of all kinds. In a word, although many delicts are SITUATED, only some are SITUATIONAL. We owe, to any social situation in which we find ourselves, evidence that we are reasonably alive to what is already in it-and furthermore to what may arise, whether on schedule or unexpectedly. If need for immediate action is required of us, we will be ready-if not mobilized, then mobilizable. A sort of communication tonus is implied. If addressed by anyone in the situation, we should not have far to go to respond, if not to reply. All in all, a certain respect and regardis to be shown to the situation at large. These demonstrations confirm that we are able and willing to enter into the perspective of the others present, if no more than is required to collaborate in the intricaciesof talk and pedestrian traffic.In our society, then, it is generallytaboo in public to be drunk, to belch or pass wind perceptibly, to daydream or doze, or to be in disarraywith respect to clothing and cosmetics-and all these for the same reason. These acts comprise our conventional repertoire, our prescribed stock of ‘symptoms’, for demonstratinga lack of respectfulalivenessin and to the situation; their inhibition is our way of ‘doing’ presence, and thereby self-respect. And the demonstration can be made with sound; audible indicators are involved as well as visual ones.

—> This has something to say to Ito’s technosocial situation, in which the situation is up for redefinition. When I speak, am I speaking to those in the here-and-now, or to those in another situation technologically layered over the first via Skype? 

Interestingly,if we mouth the read words to ourselves, making the mouthings audible, we will be taken to be unschooled, not unhinged- unless, of course, our general appearance implies a high educational status and therefore no ’natural’ reason for uncontained reading

In brief, our subject externalizes a presumed inward state, and acts so as to make discernible the special circumstances which presumably produced it.  He tells a little story to the situation. He rendershimself easy to assess by all those in the gathering, even as he guides what is to be their assessment. He presents an act specialized in a conventional way for providing information-a DISPLAY-a communication in the ethological, not the linguistic, sense.

Insteadof thinkingof self-talkas somethingblurtedout underpressure, then, it might better be thought of as a mode of response constantly readiedfor those circumstances in which it is excusable. Indeed, the time and place when our private reactioniswhatstrangerspresentNEED toknowaboutistheoccasionwhenself-talk is more than excusable

. ‘Recipient design’ is involved (to use Harvey Sacks’ term), and so quickly applied as to suggest that on-going monitoring of the situation is being sustained, enablingjust this adjustmentwhen the moment arises which requiresit.

Semiotic recipient design: just as we sometimes use self-talk to disclose internal state as evidence of our innocence or appropriateness (showing that we are surprised to have tripped, that tripping was an unexpected departure from our usual competence as walkers), we can use iconic speech (expressives) to show that our interpretive frame (in Black’s sense) is suitable and appropriate. For example, when someone says something which has available an inappropriate interpretation, the involuntary smile of recognition is inappropriate because it discloses a frame that should not be there. 

Is iconicity conventionalized as display?

These non-lexicalized, discrete interjections-like certain unsegmented, tonal, prosodic features of speech-comport neatly with our doctrine of human nature. We see such ’expression’ as a natural overflowing, a flooding up of previously contained feeling, a bursting of normal restraints,a case of being caught off-guard.That is what would be learnedby asking the man in the street if he uses these forms-and, if so, what he means by them.

A response cry is (if anything is) a ritualized act in the ethological sense of that term. Unable to shape the world the way we want to, we displace our manipulation of it to the verbal channel, displaying evidence of our alignment to the on-going events; the display takes the condensed, truncated form of a discretely-articulated, non-lexicalized expression. Or, suddenly able to manage a tricky, threateningset of circumstances, we deflect into non-lexicalized sound a dramatization of our relief and self-congratulationin the achievement.

What kinds of iconic speech are possible via text message?     typos

    silence

    proof of work

    emoji?

Here an argumentmade earlier about multiple transformations can be taken up. Precipitous drops are the sorts of things to which an individual can be very close without the slightestdangerof falling over, or intent to do so. In these circumstances, it would seem that imagery of accident would come to the fore, or at least be very readily available. It is this easily-achieved mental set that the threat startle seems to participate in.  Thus the uncompelling character of the actual circumstances can be nicely reflected in the light and almost relaxed character of the cry. One has, then, a warning-LIKEsignal in dangerous-LIKE circumstances. Ritualization begins to give way to a copy of itself-a playful version of what is already a formalized version, a display that has been retransformed and reset, a second-order ritualization.

What to talk about 

Goffman, response cries

What is ritualization doing 

Semiotic recipient design: just as we sometimes use self-talk to disclose internal state as evidence of our innocence or appropriateness (showing that we are surprised to have tripped, that tripping was an unexpected departure from our usual competence as walkers), we can use iconic speech (expressives) to show that our interpretive frame (in Black’s sense) is suitable and appropriate. For example, when someone says something which has available an inappropriate interpretation, the involuntary smile of recognition is inappropriate because it discloses a frame that should not be there. 

TONUS We owe, to any social situation in which we find ourselves, evidence that we are reasonably alive to what is already in it-and furthermore to what may arise, whether on schedule or unexpectedly. If need for immediate action is required of us, we will be ready-if not mobilized, then mobilizable. A sort of communication tonus is implied. If addressed by anyone in the situation, we should not have far to go to respond, if not to reply. All in all, a certain respect and regardis to be shown to the situation at large.

RITUALIZATION A response cry is (if anything is) a ritualized act in the ethological sense of that term. Unable to shape the world the way we want to, we displace our manipulation of it to the verbal channel, displaying evidence of our alignment to the on-going events; the display takes the condensed, truncated form of a discretely-articulated, non-lexicalized expression. Or, suddenly able to manage a tricky, threateningset of circumstances, we deflect into non-lexicalized sound a dramatization of our relief and self-congratulationin the achievement.

prefer—there is a class-based expectation of awareness to/attentiveness to construals. 

Technosocial situation: space. intimacy-> closeness (an example of abstraction or ritualization)