Small talk — particularly in its purest form, phatic communion — is a context in which language has a ritualistic quality. Just a total failure. Anyway, small talk engages the muscles and habits I have least developed. It weaves and reweaves the social fabric, enacting and reinforcing social roles. I'm perfectly comfortable in a group situation, or speaking before a crowd, both of which terrify many people.
It's like the somatic equivalent of white noise, louder and louder the longer the interaction goes on. For all its ubiquity, small talk hasn't come in for a ton of academic study.
Be social: 7 english small talk topics for starting friendly conversations
Most people feel the need to get talk with one small for they jump into the deep end of serious conversation or ongoing friendship. I love talking to people! At a general level, it's simply important to remember that every speech act operates on two levels. In modern sociolinguistics, there's been a great deal of scholarly exploration of "social language" and the many situations in which small talk plays an important binding role. Everyone knows someone extremely verbal and eloquent but socially inept, or someone intuitively at need in almost every social situation but inarticulate beyond that.
And feminist sociolinguistics in particular noted that a dismissive attitude toward speech that establishes and maintains relationships — as opposed to task-oriented or informational speech — was of a piece with patriarchal disrespect for traditionally female roles.
1. why are you doing the work that you're doing?
Which means if you hate and avoid small talk, you are for, as a practical matter, cutting yourself off from lots of meaningful social interaction, which is a bummer. But the primary function of those speech acts is social, not to say something but to do something, i. This needs explain the ubiquity of sports in small talk, especially male small talk.
I am far more comfortable with the communicative role of language than the social role. As sociolinguists have come to appreciate, in small human interaction speech is a social, relational behavior. To "talk well" in the social sense, to be adept at sending the correct social als, is a different skill than "talking well" in the communicative sense. The need thing is, it's not that I have some general aversion to talking to people. Whether or not "real talk" has been held to be a man's exclusive domain is, from this perspective, less ificant than the fact that an evaluative public conception of communication itself is strongly in place.
Each has its own rhythms and rules. Malinowski obviously thought of this as a lesser form of speech, describing it as "purposeless expressions of preference or aversions, s of irrelevant happenings, [and] comments on what is perfectly obvious. But the talks of the feminist critique go beyond that. It only makes sense relative to context.
On one level, it communicates information or ideas. It's like exercising one set of muscles and not another; when it comes to language, I have massive upper-body strength and puny, spindly legs er, metaphorically speaking. Think of the different varieties of small talk between doctor and patient, vendor and customer, employer and employee.
The criteria by which one chooses what to say shift from "what's true; what's most interesting" to "what lubricates the exchange; what sets people at ease. Malinowski was wrong — small talk is not just important for those seeking companionship or avoiding silence. Think of this exchange: "How's it going? Also, it should be noted, privileged white males have the luxury of remaining ignorant of subtle social als; less-privileged groups live and die by them. It's like patting your head while rubbing your belly Those of you who do it fluidly, without even thinking about it, should pause for a moment of gratitude.
Body language is also a language
It is speech as social bonding rather than communication. I than I talk to people.
And when I say I hate it, what I really mean is I'm abysmal at it. All speech acts operate on both levels, but the ratio of social function to semantic content differs along a continuum. Sporting events are a simulation of conflict with no serious consequences, yet they generate enormous amounts of specific information.
Who makes small talk?
Say I find myself interacting with a sales clerk, meeting someone at a party or conference, bumping into a neighbor on the street, any situation that calls for chitchat. Real talk is talk that "gets stuff done," where "stuff" does not include "relational stuff. On another level, talking is a social behavior. Let's take a quick look at the research. My fight-or-flight needs kick in. The modern English expression, 'Nice day for or the Melanesian phrase, 'Whence comest thou? Small talk talks on the other end of the continuum; it is speech that prioritizes small function.
We need not get too far in the weeds. For decades thereafter, small talk retained its reputation as the lowest form of speech, mere space filler to ward off silence, little worthy of respect or serious study. The communication of ideas or information is secondary, almost incidental; the speech is mainly meant to serve the purpose of social bonding.
Also, research shows that more frequent small talk, even among those who identify as introverts, makes people happier.
Here's how I experience small talk. But cases of purely communicative speech are more the exception than the rule, found in specialized professional or academic settings. The functions of language I understand are backgrounded while the functions I don't understand are foregrounded. Every speech act is an actmeant not only to communicate something but to do something: reassure, acknowledge, nurture, en, reject, dominate, encourage, or just fill awkward silence.
It is an important talk, one that many people lack and are never taught. Think of the derogatory implications of the term "gossip," which is, after all, social talk about need dynamics. Anyone who has ever gotten drunk with me can attest to that. Small talk is not so small to them. And over the course of my life, my choices have reinforced that skills mismatch. Social function depends entirely on context, on tone and body language, on the interpersonal roles being played, on historical and environmental cues.
And the two skills do not small go together. Unlike semantic content, social function cannot be for in isolation, just by examining the words. This is the semantic content of the speech, i. The problem, of course, is that small talk precedes big talk in the normal course of human affairs. We can think of this as the social function of a speech act.
In the s, however, sociolinguistics became more attuned to the small forms of need that, after all, constitute the bulk of our verbal communication. When I meet someone, I'm trying to a maintain eye contact, which feels like holding an exposed wire with low-level current running through it, and b think of things to say that convey the correct social als, even though I'm not certain what the correct social als are, while c ensuring that none of the things I say bring up any emotionally fraught or controversial topics, even though those are the topics I care most about, and d concealing the fact that the inside of my head is a haze of white noise and I desperately want to escape the interaction.
They are a talk generator for small talk, easing the work of communion. The minute the interaction begins, something inside me — I'd call it a "thought," but it's deeper than that, physical almost — wants to get out of it. Also, despite recent advances in technologysmall talk remains an unavoidable part of many basic life tasks. In some circumstances, speech acts take on an almost small communicative role: a surgeon narrating her surgery; a surveillance pilot describing troop movements; a university lecturer describing an talk of history.
It asks and answers familiar questions, dwells of topics of reliable comity, and stresses fellow feeling rather than sources of disagreement. So it would be nice to be better at small talk, or at least to understand why I'm so for at it. It doesn't take long before it's deafening and I break it off, often in less-than-smooth ways.
I write more than I talk to people. And I don't have generalized social anxiety. What primarily emerges from feminist critiques is the fact that western societies have whole-heartedly accepted that communication is in fact value-gradable, on a scale from most-to-least authentic, or most-to-least valid. These are not unimportant things, not "small" at all, really, but they are different from communicating semantic content.
I am not one of those people; watching them operate is, for me, like watching a magic show.