Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Chris Croughton <chris@keristor.net>
Newsgroups: alt.languages.english
Subject: Re: Valley-girl speech
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 13:18:38 +0100
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <slrnd8p10u.g9n.chris@ccserver.keris.net>
References: <gun781p19g45lrh8gu63irojijfmgigoqu@4ax.com> <IRVge.370$E_3.83@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net> <20050513.0733.59931snz@dsl.co.uk> <3ek9a2F3hb69U1@individual.net> <3er52hF4hd14U1@individual.net> <slrnd8gtep.sdb.chris@ccserver.keris.net> <20050518.1758.59951snz@dsl.co.uk>
Reply-To: chris@keristor.net
X-Trace: individual.net +FsuxP84cD5jyP95OLAT1A7Kp60oQrV37PQTfk4ZS5/oZpPR8=
X-Orig-Path: ccserver.keris.net!news
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.languages.english:717
On Wed, 18 May 2005 18:58:52 +0100 (BST), Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
<bhk@dsl.co.uk> wrote:
> On Monday, in article
> <slrnd8gtep.sdb.chris@ccserver.keris.net> chris@keristor.net
> "Chris Croughton" wrote:
>
>> Similar to that is the eye contact protocol. To some people, it is
>> expected that eye contact is made continuously to indicate agreement (or
>> at least agreement to continue) and lack of eye contact indicates
>> disagreement or disinterest. To others eye contact from a listener
>> means "I wish to say something" and from a talker means "I'm ready to
>> hand over to you is you wish". Again, two almost inverse
>> interpretations of the same signals and no way to tell in advance which
>> one a person uses without explicit negotiation.
>
> Yes, just where did that ridiculous protocol originate? I don't recall
> anyone expecting any sort of eye-contact from interlocutors back in the
> 1950s/60s; I tend to associate the concept with the happy-clappy hippy-
> dippy culture of the late 60s, where suddenly "body language" had become
> significant.
I first encountered it in the 70s but apparently it was a common
protocol well before that. I've found a number of people my age and
older (so learning it before 1960, say) who not only use one or other
eye-contact protocols but also insist that theirs is the 'correct' one.
(It's certainly the case in other primates that eye contact is an
important protocol, if it fell out of use in some human societies then
it was fairly recent -- in the last few million years, probably <g>...)
> The most dangerous manifestation can be seen each and every day on our
> roads: drivers turning towards their passenger to demonstrate that, yes,
> they really are taking an interest in their conversation. I'm quite
> happy to conduct a conversation whilst driving: however, I would NEVER
> look anywhere other than the road in front of me, and my three rear-view
> mirrors (on a motorway, I'm constantly cycling
You're cycling on a motorway? No wonder it's dangerous <g>...
> through these and the view
> ahead, and am usually conscious of other traffic for at least a mile
> ahead and behind).
I'm always amazed at the number of people who apparently don't "think
ahead" (or behind). This can be seen at junctions and roundabouts where
they stop and then look around (my driving instructor used to say "Are
you waiting for something to come so you can hit it?"), when I approach
a junction I am aware well before I get there of whether anything else
is coming (to the extent of normal visibility). Similarly they seem to
see only the car in front, when I'm driving if a car 100 yards ahead
puts on their brakes I start thinking about slowing down.
> Furthermore, TV dramas (both home-grown and Leftpondian) show just about
> every driver conducting conversations in this manner.
It was mentioned by Robert A. Heinlein in his story "Lost Legacy"
(collected with three other stories in two volumes as "Assignment in
Eternity") written in 1941 where the driver turns her head to talk to
the passengers (in that instance she is 'seeing' by ESP so it is safe,
allegedly, but it seemed to be accepted that drivers behaved like that
in general).
Chris C
|
|