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 …show more content…
Using Saville-Troike’s (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 …show more content…
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 colleagues in management positions. 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
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 …show more content…
Using Saville-Troike’s (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 …show more content…
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 colleagues in management positions. 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