Introduction

Linguists since Saussure (1916) have distinguished between language (langue), the underlying system of shared grammatical and other rules, and speech (parole), which is the way people actually talk. While grammarians take as their data idealised utterances which are generally regarded as acceptable, sociolinguists have studied the actual speech systems used by different social groups, in different situations.

It is obvious that language is used in a variety of ways in different situations. The same individuals will talk quite differently when discussing a technical problem at work, playing a game, or drinking beer. In some cultures they use different languages for different situations; in most cultures there are ‘high’ and ‘low’ speech styles for formal and informal situations. The form of language used varies with the role relations of those speaking (e.g. parent–child, husband–wife), as well as with the physical channel used (e.g. the telephone). We have pursued a functional explanation of rules and repertoire, and we shall now explore a functional model of language in relation to the goals of situations.

Sociolinguists have collected samples of speech in different settings. For example, Labov (1972b) used the methods of informal interviews, group discussion between friends, unsystematic observation and asking people to read passages and word lists. He describes an ‘observer's paradox’, the difficulty of finding out how people talk when they are not being observed, which can only be overcome by systematic observation.

Introduction

Early devisers of category schemes (e.g. Bales, 1950) hoped that their schemes would be equally applicable to all social situations. Bales' scheme has indeed been used to analyse group discussion, classrooms, management–union negotiation, psychotherapy, doctor–patient encounters and family life. The hypothesis that the repertoire of social behaviour is universal to all situations is attractive; it would reflect the constant structure of the nervous system, and enable us to look for universal principles of social behaviour. Beneath the differences between tennis, table tennis and squash, for example, are basically equivalent moves, and the same may be true of social behaviour. We shall examine the alternative hypothesis that the repertoire of social acts is different in different situations; connected with this is the functional hypothesis that these repertoires are related to the goals being sought, for example by forming the steps that bring about those goals, and by providing the distinctions that need to be made between otherwise similar acts in particular situations.

We shall study several different kinds of elements: verbal categories, verbal contents, nonverbal communication and bodily actions. And we shall discuss the question of the size of units of social behaviour. Duncan contrasted the structural approach and the external variable approach to the study of nonverbal communication. By the structural approach he meant ‘studies which have sought to identify fundamental elements (or units) of nonverbal behaviours, and to explore the systematic relationships among these units’ (1969, p. 121), as have been carried out by Birdwhistell, Scheflen, Kendon and others.

It is now familiar from many lines of research that social situations have a great impact on all aspects of behaviour, but little is known about how to describe or analyse situations. In social-skills training, for example, it is common to find clients who have difficulties with particular situations, but it is not always clear how they should be instructed to cope with these situations.

This book reports a new approach to the analysis of social situations, a related programme of research which was financed by the SSRC, and it reviews other research on situations. Our own main studies are described in the form of research reports at the ends of chapters.

As well as contributing to the understanding of social behaviour, situational analysis is important for the analysis of personality. In addition it has widespread practical applications, to social-skills training, mental health and deviance, intergroup behaviour, personnel selection and consumer research.

We are most grateful to Michael Brenner, Anne Campbell, Peter Collett, David Clarke, Jerry Ginsburg, Peter Hancock, Rom Harré, Miles Hewstone, Jos Jaspars, Marga Kreckel, Peter Marsh, David Pendleton and Greg Young for their ideas, collaboration with research and comments on the manuscript. Our thanks also go to Ann McKendry for making sense of and typing innumerable redrafts of assorted scraps of paper.