The Opening Handshake#

Someone says “how are you?”#

You have about a second to reply.

The correct reply is not an answer.

Not a remedial course#

• No standard to be brought up to; only a majority
• Nobody is here because something is wrong with them
• You are here because the specification is missing, and you noticed

How a week runs#

• Tuesday — a lecture writes part of the protocol down
• Thursday — a lab checks it in the room, with a run sheet and timings
• Sunday, from week 2 — a Field Journal entry

Nothing in a lab is sprung on you.

Four parts, twelve weeks#

Instructions included#

The documentation exists#

In 1968 Emanuel Schegloff published an attempt to “ascertain rules” for how conversations open, and named properties those rules have — one is conditional relevance.

Talk whose job is the relationship#

“Phatic communion”: Malinowski’s 1920s term for talk that maintains the connection rather than carrying information.

Better understood as negotiated than as a fixed, empty type.

First, a prior question#

What is the thing we are about to specify?

The greetings literature kept asserting properties of greetings — no real content, purely expressive — without agreeing what counted as one.

Six criteria#

Duranti proposed six criteria for identifying a greeting exchange across languages and speech communities, so the claims could be tested instead of repeated.

Then he went and looked#

Applying the criteria in a speech community in Western Samoa: four types of greeting exchange.

They break the standard claim. These greetings are not devoid of propositional content, and need not be “expressive” acts.

People use them to search for new information and to sanction social behaviour.

In the room: is it a greeting? (6 min)#

In pairs. Decide, and say what test you used.

1. A nod across a lecture theatre. No words, no reply.
2. “Alright?” shouted across a road, and they keep walking.
3. A barista saying “hi, how are you, what can I get you?” as one unit.
4. Two people who pass four times in a day and greet once.

One minute to read; three to compare criteria; two to hear two decisions.

The request#

“How are you?” · “How’s it going?” · “You alright?” · “How’ve you been?” · “Hey, how are things?”

In passing, these are the same message.

None requests information. Each requests one acknowledgement that the relationship is in working order.

Valid replies#

In the register of a standards document#

The reply SHOULD return the request when there’s time for one more turn.

It MAY skip the return when both are clearly moving on.

A returned request MUST be answered with a token too.

The branch is sometimes worth taking#

See the fork while you’re standing at it.

Then decide whether this is the conversation you want to start.

Same words, different room#

When it’s a real question#

The asker:

• stops moving
• asks twice (“no, how are you actually?”)
• asks somewhere private

These are the course’s working rules, not a finding. Thursday’s lab tests them.

Break#

14:55–15:05

Resume at 15:05.

In the room: three openings, three records (12 min)#

Fictional cases:

• A: Both walk. “How are you?” / “Good, you?” / “Fine.” They part.
• B: A stops. “How are you?” / “Fine.” / “No, how are you actually?” / “Worried about Friday.” A offers to sit down.
• C: At a lift. “How are you?” / “Surviving.” The doors open; both enter.

2 min: label closed, branched or unclear; underline your evidence. 4 min: compare; name an observation that would settle C. 3 min: write a closing reply and an invitation to continue. 3 min: compare two pairs’ records.

Why do you owe a reply at all?#

Why does an opening make a reply expected?

Schegloff has a term nearby — conditional relevance — but we only read the abstract, so it stays a name.

The puzzle, taken directly#

What is it about some turns that reliably gets a response — and when is someone accountable for not giving one?

Two inherited answers:

• Linguistic: interrogativity does it. A question is a question.
• Sociological: the social action does it.

Each has merit. Neither settles it.

What they argue instead#

• Different actions mobilise a response to different degrees
• Speakers design turns with response-mobilising features
• Those features hold a recipient more or less accountable for replying
• Position, action and turn design each contribute

Which cuts both ways#

If replies are hard for you: you can match the level you were given. A nod can answer a nod; a person already walking away may not be inviting a conversation.

If replies are automatic for you: you have a dial you didn’t know you were turning. When you actually want an answer, you can turn it up on purpose instead of hoping.

In the room: turn the dial (8 min)#

In pairs, take “You’ve been quiet this week.” and say it twice.

1. Once so a reply is hard to withhold — stop moving, use their name, ask again, leave the silence.
2. Once so a reply is easy to skip — in passing, over your shoulder, with an exit in it: “no need to answer that.”

Then swap, and name what you changed.

One minute to read; two per partner; three to compare features. You may annotate the two fictional scripts instead of acting them.

Why nobody handed it to you#

If you run the handshake without effort, familiarity can make its rules hard to see.

If it’s felt strange for years, you were right that it had rules. That’s a documentation problem, not a problem with you.

Thursday: corridor capture#

Log the openings that occur during the capture window: words, reply type, and closed, branched or unclear. Zero is a possible count.

Prepared fictional cases supply classification practice if the corridor is quiet.

Words, not people. No names, no descriptions, no recording.

If time remains#

Which part of the opening handshake would you document for your tutorial group, and what might writing it down change?

Optional discussion. Finish by 15:55.