Hi Randy,
I'm going to use a little clip from one of your messages to clarify
something I said in one of my messages. But what you say comes close to
something I was trying to think about.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Randy Bomer wrote:
> I'm having to discipline myself not to include the vocative/salutation at
> the beginning of this message, but I found it very helpful to read Rosa's
> comment that that convention seems less than inviting.
My comment was part of trying to figure out some of the similarities and
differences between FTF conversations and the "conversational" situation
that the list space affords.
Vocatives select an addressee (this "singling out" is part of what makes
vocatives feel warm or personal [as long as the act that they're attached
to is not a face-threatening one] and this is a not negligigible function
of vocatives). However, by singling out an addressee, they also single out
a "preferred" respondent. In FTF conversation, vocatives are one of the
techniques that can be used in designating a next speaker (one of the
"current speaker selects next" techniques). The person so designated has
rights over others, and these rights are precious since the next turn slot
can only be filled by one speaker ("no overlap").
In the list, however, there can be multiple next speakers. We don't need
to negotiate the next turn. So, the vocative is probably not that
exclusive/excluding. In addition, we know that if the writer really wanted
to talk to just that one person he or she has the option of going
off-list. Yet ... the vocative IS playing some function in "selecting
next", just as citing somebody's words also seems to create a
responsibility as Mary points out:
> I have not responded to each person in turn, even when the author of the
> message quoted a message of mine directly, ...
From which I get two norms that we seem to be operating under:
If I am invoked, I feel I need to respond
If my words are cited I feel I need to respond
(this message I am writing is also an example of the second).
The converse doesn't apply outright. If somebody else is addressed
directly it doesn't mean I'm excluded. But yet there is a certain
dis-obligation. The fact that a message starts by invoking one person
provides me with an "out" of some kind. So that when somebody complains
about being ignored I can mentally commisserate and ally myself with him
or her and yet it never seems to click that I'm one of the ones keeping
silent, because as Randy said in his message " ..I didn't see the
> initial question as being addressed to me. I was positive others on the
> list had more to say ..." I've felt like this too, constantly ... Like
Randy, I didn't feel addressed by the request for activity triangles and
didn't have anything to contribute, but in my case it goes beyond
diagrams, so, I'm trying to get a handle on what contributes in the
discourse to this auto-exclusion, and in part, I think it has to do with
how I transfer FTF conversation conventions to a list situation, and in
part it has to do with perceived roles and hierarchies within the list.
--Rosa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:09 PST