Identity and Linguistic Dynamics in a Group Setting
My observations were conducted at a popular local restaurant in which a group of elderly men gather, informally, every Saturday morning to discuss a wide range of topics and activities. Typically, these gatherings feature an intense discussion of some controversial issue of the day, as well as some general talk about personal health issues. This group was selected for the regularity of its meetings and attendance (individual members of the group rarely missed); a general lack of intrusion from other elements in the environment (other customers, public address announcements, etc.); and the often-animated nature of the group’s discussions. The restaurant itself is primarily a self-service establishment, which allows the men to come and go as they please and adds to the informality of the gatherings. On Saturdays, the restaurant does not get busy until lunchtime, which gives the group plenty of time (at least three hours) each Saturday in which to come together and interact.
IDENTITY
My vantage point for observing the group was at a respectful distance, leaving no possibility that I might be pulled into their conversation, while remaining well within listening distance. These observations took place over the course of a full month. The men typically returned to familiar themes, which ranged from sports to health care and American politics (specifically, the upcoming presidential campaign). Most of the conversations I observed included a strong dose of personal opinion, most of which found agreement with other members of the group though infrequent disagreements sometimes aroused strong feelings, which were emphatically expressed. All “arguments” ended amicably, and with no lingering feelings of rancor. From this I deduced that the group had been together as friends for some time and had become so familiar with each others’ likes and dislikes that avoiding conflict between them had become a matter of routine (Frawley, p. 294).
As representatives of the same generation, the men had shared similar experiences during their lives. Two members of the group had fought in the Korean war, while one had served in Vietnam. One of the most distinguishable aspects of their conversations was their use of language, which reflected little of contemporary culture but which remained grounded in their shared backgrounds and the expressions that were common during their younger days. The men used expressions like “fellas” or “boys” to indicate familiarity; one member of the group was given to expressing surprise with the phrase, “Well I’ll be!” These linguistic particularities were clear indications of the mens’ age and the commonality of their language identified them as members of the same generation.
IDENTITY
The group’s non-verbal cues clearly stemmed from a commonly understood level of unspoken communication. All members were quite familiar with these non-verbal signs, which bespoke a high degree of fluency in the dynamics of the group as a whole. Facial expressions indicated a tacit understanding of the peculiarities of individual members, who together comprise a linguistic “world” of their own. “In this case, the most important cues for deciphering the meaning of (a) sentence (comes) from our knowledge of the world” (Mahmoudian, p. 37). In this case, the “world” is comprised of the boundaries of the group itself and its rules are defined by old, established relationships. The men clearly exhibited the truth of the assertion that people have an instinctive ability to understand each other based on non-verbal cues. “To be sure, research shows that people can usually read someone else’s feelings from the facial expression” (Goleman, 1991).
The “Saturday morning” group was representative of a distinctive sub-population within a greater cultural construct. The men functioned according to the fundamental rules of society, but they clearly functioned independently of their immediate environment. They seemed aware of the fact that the other people in the restaurant were fundamentally separated from their interaction. Their “culture” was based on shared experiences and a kind of arcane language that described those experiences. Both experience and language defined the group as distinct from its environment, even though the individuals who comprised the group returned to being individual members of the greater society when the group broke up and went home after each meeting (Thomas, Singh and Peccei, p. 158). Their identity as a group was clearly important to each member and was something each considered worthwhile preserving.
IDENTITY
These observations left me with a better understanding of the workings of society, both in terms of its distinctive, individual cultural components and as a whole. The group I observed exhibited many of the characteristics common to the co-cultural theory, including the existence of a hierarchy within the larger group (Littlejohn and Foss, p. 182). While no one person dominated the conversations, two or three individuals tended to guide the discussion, serving to extend consideration of a specific topic or choosing to open a new one. These individuals tended to “author” the basic course of conversation, in so doing occupying a kind of de facto leadership (p. 182). These individuals also tended to take it upon themselves to encourage the less verbal members of the group to participate, either suggesting topics that they could contribute to or asking direct questions aimed at making them comfortable contributing.
The observation of linguistic group dynamics presented an enlightening microcosm of cultural interaction. The group’s discussions were conducted according to an implicitly democratic set of informal rules that invited each member to participate in the conversation. The topics discussed were generally thoroughly explored, and a certain discipline was observed that facilitated an extensive consideration of each subject. Once begun, a specific topic received the group’s full attention, with the unofficial “leader,” or leaders, seeing to it that the conversation did not veer into other areas. Based on this group’s modus operandi, there seemed to be aspects that could be applied to human interaction on a wider scale. Namely, the acceptance of all viewpoints, insistence on hearing all opinions and the generally held respect for the group’s identity held by each member.
IDENTITY
References
Frawley, W. (2003). International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol. 4. New York, NY: Oxford
Univ. Press.
Goleman, D. “Non-Verbal Cues are Easy to Misinterpret.” The New York Times. 17 Sept.
Littlejohn, S.W. and Foss, K.A. (2007). Theories of Human Communication. Boston, MA:
Cengage Learning.
Mahmoudian, M. (1993). Modern Theories of Language: The Empirical Challenge. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
Thomas, L., Singh, I., and Peccei, J.S. (2004). Language, Society and Power: An Introduction.
New York, NY: Routledge.
