in description
fightknight
acom_2_extra_credit_.pdf
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(1), 65–84 Copyright © 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Small Talk at Work: Potential Problems for Workers With an Intellectual Disability
Janet Holmes Department of Linguistics and Applied Research
Victoria University of Wellington
It is commonly assumed that communication in the workplace is primarily transac- tional talk, that is, task-oriented interaction focusing on information exchange. The research of the Wellington Language in the Workplace Project indicates, however, that workplace interaction is unlikely to proceed smoothly without the crucial small talk that oils the social wheels. Although competent native speakers have been so- cialized over many years to “do” small talk appropriately at work, successfully en- gaging in small talk in different work contexts presents serious challenges for some workplace novitiates. This article explores some of the problems presented by small talk for workers with intellectual disabilities. The way such workers negotiate work- place interactions provides valuable insights into the taken-for-granted assumptions that underlie much of our day-to-day interaction at work. The analysis examines 2 distinct aspects of small talk at work, namely the way small talk is distributed and the complex functions of small talk in workplace interaction.
This article is a revised version of a paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Lan- guage and Social Psychology at the University of Wales, Cardiff, in 2000. It draws on material in two earlier articles, namely Holmes (2000) and Holmes and Fillary (2000). I thank my colleague Paul Nation for his helpful comments on a final draft, Justine Coupland for her perceptive editorial suggestions that improved the final version, and Meredith Marra for her as- sistance with editing.
Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Janet Holmes, Department of Linguistics and Applied Langua, Victoria University, P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected].
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
Introducing Coupland (2000), Candlin (2000) noted that many of the articles illustrate the fact that small talk is typically located “in the prag- matic space between and among the transactional and the relational func- tions of talk” (p. xv). This observation succinctly identifies one of the ma- jor challenges of small talk for workers with intellectual disabilities, the group who are the focus of this article.1 Although seasoned workers have been socialized over many years to “do” small talk appropriately at work, and they can effectively engage in small talk in a range of different work contexts, social interaction at work typically presents a range of challenges for workers with intellectual disabilities. Indeed, the ways in which such workers negotiate or fail to negotiate workplace interaction provides valu- able insights into the taken-for-granted assumptions that underlie much of our daily interactions at work.
As is illustrated, some aspects of the distribution of small talk at work prove problematic for workers with intellectual disabilities. What- ever the nature of the intellectual disability and the cognitive disadvan- tage it imposes on these workers, unfamiliarity with workplace norms and lack of practice in social skills certainly exacerbates their difficulties with small talk. Small talk is typically located at the boundaries of inter- action, but recognizing what counts as a relevant and legitimate bound- ary often entails sophisticated judgments about the structure of discourse (Ferguson, 1976; Laver, 1981). The frequency and amount of small talk appropriate on different occasions and in different social contexts are further distributional aspects of small talk that often prove problematic to workers unfamiliar with workplace norms or unused to practicing them. Moreover, small talk typically extends into social talk, and as the formulaic routine components of the interaction reduce, the demands on the conversationalists increase.2 As workplace conversation becomes more of a negotiation and less of a ritual, workers with disabilities are of- ten left floundering.
Another aspect of workplace talk that may prove problematic for workers with intellectual disabilities is recognizing the intrinsically social functions of small talk. As Coupland (2000) commented, “social encounters are pervasively organized around multiple interactional goals that go well beyond…the transmission and reception of factual information” (p. 8). It is relatively easy as a neophyte to be misled by the superficial content of small talk and respond to it as information rather than as a means of establishing social contact. The most fundamental function of small talk is to construct, maintain, and reinforce positive social relationships
66 Janet Holmes
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
or solidarity between coworkers. Although small talk also subtly serves less obvious roles such as marking discourse boundaries (e.g., indicating it is time to leave), or expressing and maintaining power relationships, there is no doubt that its overriding, primary function is to “do collegial- ity.” Workers with an intellectual disability do not always recognize this important fundamental function, and sometimes therefore respond inap- propriately, as I illustrate in this article.3 Example 1 illustrates the kind of everyday small talk that goes on in many workplaces at the start of the day, constructing and maintaining friendly relationships among cowork- ers (Holmes, 2000).
SOCIAL SKILLS FOR WORKERS WITH AN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY
Example 1 Context: Small talk between three workers in a plant nursery at the start of the day. Des is the manager. Tom is a worker with an intellectual disability. Ros is the plant nursery worker who works alongside Tom. (All names are pseudonyms.)
1 Des: Be a nice day when it all warms up a bit though 2 Ros: Yeah (2.4) okay 3 Des: So you haven’t done anything all week (1.7) eh you haven’t done 4 anything exciting (2.6) talk to any girls 5 Tom: No 6 Des: Oh that’s all right then 7 Ros: ((laughs)) 8 Des: You don’t want to talk to girls they’re more they’re trouble Tom 9 (1.2) they get you into trouble (1.6) look at me (2.7)
10 I would have been rich and good looking if I hadn’t had girls 11 now I’m just good looking (1.6) see ya Tom 12 Tom: ((no response))
Like a good deal of male social interaction, this example involves friendly teasing (Hay, 1994; Kuiper 1991). For workers with intellectual disabilities, however, such apparently “easy” interactions often present a real challenge. In example 1, Tom, the worker with a disability, makes only one contribution, and that is a negative minimal response to a ques- tion addressed directly to him. At line 3, Des pauses after the clearly in- vitational utterance “So you haven’t done anything all week,” and again after “you haven’t done anything exciting” (line 4), but Tom fails to
Small Talk at Work 67
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
respond until he is faced with a more specific interrogative “talk to any girls.” The same pattern is repeated in lines 8–11, where Des again pauses at several points that provide “slots” for Tom to respond (see es- pecially line 9). Tom’s failure to contribute even an appreciative laugh here constitutes an “absence” that conversational analysis suggests is “noticeable” in such a context (Button, 1992; Drew & Heritage, 1992; Sacks, 1987).4
The exchange illustrates a point that recurs in the literature on work- ers with intellectual disabilities (though it is rarely supported by genuine verbatim observational data). Although these workers are often highly skilled at the tasks they undertake in the workplace, some of those with intellectual disabilities find managing social interaction in the workplace a major challenge. Greenspan and Shoultz (1981) cited extensive research, including their own, that supports the claim that “It is an in- ability to interact effectively with other people, rather than an inability to operate machines or perform job tasks that often causes many mentally retarded adults to get fired from competitive jobs” (p. 23). There is evi- dence that workers with intellectual disabilities typically interact less with coworkers at breaktimes (Parent, Kregel, Metzler, & Twardzik, 1992), engage with a smaller range of coworkers (Storey, Rhodes, Sandow, Loewinger, & Petheridge, 1991), engage in more inappropriate interactions (Parent et al., 1992), and are less involved in workplace jok- ing and teasing (e.g., Beyer & Kilsby, 1995, cited in Hagnar, 1996; Hatton, 1998). Reviewing this literature, Hatton (1998) concluded that although people with intellectual disabilities are generally accepted by coworkers, they typically do not achieve “a high degree of social integration” (p. 91).
Actual ability to perform work tasks is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of success at work, with social and interpersonal skills underpinning the structure as much more significant predictors of workplace success (Black & Langone, 1997; Butterworth & Strauch, 1994; Hagnar, 1993; Huang & Cuvo, 1997). As Hatton (1998) pointed out, “Relatively subtle as- pects of pragmatic language use can inhibit the development of meaning- ful relationships with others…the display of conversational competence can be considered as an essential prerequisite for the achievement of a valued quality of life” (p. 93). Recent research on factors affecting the suc- cess of workers with intellectual disabilities stresses the crucial role played by social skills or social behaviors in the perceptions of others as compe- tent. Typically, socially competent workers are more positively perceived,
68 Janet Holmes
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
whatever their level of task-related ability (Butterworth & Strauch, 1994; Hatton, 1998).
ANALYZING WORKPLACE TALK
Language plays an important part in creating a particular kind of work environment. Wenger (1998) suggested that a workplace is a typical “community of practice” with its own repertoire of resources, including linguistic and discourse resources. Using language appropriately for each particular workplace is a crucial aspect of becoming an accepted participant (Roberts, Davies, & Jupp, 1992). Joining a new workplace usually entails developing an awareness of its distinctive culture and learning how to use language in new ways to negotiate new meanings with new colleagues. Interaction is a dynamic process and language is a crucial resource in managing social relations at work (Drew & Heritage, 1992). So when we join a new workplace we need to learn not only the technical terminology and the in-group jargon, we also need to acquire the norms for interaction that obtain there—the appropriate ways of ad- dressing and referring to people and the ways of participating in the everyday talk, including small talk, that constitutes the social glue of any workplace.
Background knowledge about the role relationships involved, as well as the kind of talk appropriate in each setting, are always relevant to how participants interpret utterances in their sequential context. Moreover, what people want to convey is generally skillfully tailored to the specific social context and negotiated between participants (Gumperz, 1982, 1992). So participants take account of relationships of power and solidar- ity, paying attention to the “face” needs of others in interaction (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Holmes, Stubbe, & Vine, 1999).
Small talk at work is one obvious manifestation of these complex so- cial skills. But the sociolinguistic competence that underlies the ability to use talk in interaction successfully is typically acquired gradually over years of experience and exposure to language in different contexts. As in- dicated earlier, there is evidence that people with intellectual disabilities are not always perceived as having fully developed this aspect of social competence, and this can cause a range of different problems for them in the workplace.
Small Talk at Work 69
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
The analysis in this article provided some empirical evidence of the kinds of problems that may arise in workplaces employing workers with intellectual disabilities. It should be borne in mind that though our focus is on potentially problematic areas, our recordings also indicated that such workers managed many interactions successfully. Conversely, the sociolin- guistic and pragmatic problems we identify can also be observed in the be- haviors of those without intellectual disability. The article thus explores two interrelated issues: first, the distinctive distributional features and im- portant social functions of small talk in the workplace for all workers; and second, the challenges that these characteristics of small talk present for workers with intellectual disabilities. Finally, it is worth emphasizing that the analysis is qualitative and indicative rather than quantitative and defin- itive (cf. Hagnar & Helm, 1994).
Method
Although the literature on the relationship between social compe- tence and success at work is extensive, there is relatively little research based on the direct observation of workers with or without intellectual disabilities in their actual places of work. As Storey et al. (1991) and Hatton (1998) noted, much of the research has been based on reports of worker behavior collected through interviews or questionnaires. We therefore have abundant evidence about how workers with disabilities are perceived by coworkers, but remarkably little empirical data on how workers actually interact and talk to each other in their workplaces. The research undertaken as part of the Wellington Language in the Work- place Project, in collaboration with colleagues at the Eastern Institute of Technology, and Supported Employment New Zealand, was designed to address this lack.5
Database and data collection. Over the past 5 years, the Wellington Language in the Workplace Project team has collected data from a range of different New Zealand workplaces, including government agencies, large commercial organizations, small businesses, and factories. More than 1,500 different interactions and 500 hr of talk at work have been recorded. The data most relevant to the analysis in this article consist of 96 audio recordings of interactions collected in workplaces where young peo- ple with intellectual disabilities had been placed. These workplaces were
70 Janet Holmes
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
small businesses, and they included two plant nurseries, a private day-care center, and a recycling plant. The bulk of the recorded data consists of small, relatively informal interactions ranging in time between 20 sec and half an hour. It includes not only task-oriented talk, but also the kind of so- cial talk that occurs at the start of the day, at “smoko” (i.e., tea breaks), and at lunchtime.
The methodology developed for the project was designed to give participants maximum control over the data collection process (for more details see Holmes, Fillary, McLeod, & Stubbe, 2000; Stubbe, 1998). In the relevant workplaces a volunteer who worked alongside the worker with a disability, a “natural support” in the jargon of those who work in this area (Rogan, Hagnar, & Murphy, 1993), tape-recorded a range of their everyday work interactions over a period of about 2 weeks. We specifically asked participants to include in their recordings the greeting routines at the beginning of each day and their social talk at work breaks. We then transcribed these data and used it as the basis for the analysis that follows. Each analysis has been discussed with members of the Wellington Language in the Workplace Project team and in particular with the site worker involved in its collection. Example 2 represents a typical example of small talk at work. It occurs as two people meet for the first time that day covering standard small talk topics—the weather, complaints about work, mention of family, health; and its main function is undoubtedly to oil the social wheels, to maintain good relations be- tween Diana and Sally.
Small talk at work.
Example 2 (from Holmes, 2000). Context: Office in a government department. Diana, a manager, enters the office of her administrative assistant, Sally, at the beginning of the day to collect mail.
1 Dia: Good morning Sally lovely day 2 Sal: Yes don’t know what we’re doing here we should be out in the sun 3 Dia: Mmm pity about the work really 4 Sal: How are your kids? 5 Dia: Much better thank goodness (.) Any mail?
This talk occurs in a white-collar office environment, whereas much of the data involving workers with an intellectual disability come from blue- collar “shop floor” contexts; that is, contexts where these workers provided
Small Talk at Work 71
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
unskilled manual work. Nevertheless, it illustrates points of relevance to the analysis of small talk across a wide range of different workplaces, includ- ing those employing workers with intellectual disabilities. In what follows I first discuss patterns in the distribution of small talk at work, namely where and when it appropriately occurs, along with the challenges such patterns pose for some workers with an intellectual disability; second, the complex functions of workplace small talk are explored from the same perspective; finally, I consider the implications of the research for those committed to assisting such workers to acquire the sociopragmatic skills in- volved in advantageously managing small talk in the workplace.
Distribution of small talk. Small talk is typically, but not exclu- sively, found at the boundaries of interaction; at the beginnings and ends of meetings, both informal and formal (Ferguson, 1976; Goffman, 1974; Laver, 1981; Tracy & Naughton, 2000); as well as at the boundaries of the working day (Hagnar, 1993; Holmes, 2000). In all workplaces, whether white collar or blue collar, it is almost mandatory to exchange small talk when people who work together first arrive at work, or meet for the first time in the working day, as example 2 demonstrates. An emergency or ur- gent task can displace it, but generally in the workplace, the first encounter of the day between work colleagues can be considered an obligatory site for small talk. The omission of small talk at such points appears marked, and is likely to be interpreted as evidence of bad manners or bad humor or a very unusual workplace culture. This was one problem identified in rela- tion to interactions of some of the workers with intellectual disabilities: They failed to respond to small talk at a point in the day that is conven- tionally regarded as socially significant. In some cases this omission sim- ply reflected the fact that, as could happen with anyone, they were feeling under the weather or only half-awake, but it was apparent in other in- stances that the worker had simply not recognized the obligatory status of small talk on first encounter. Example 3 illustrates this point: Jim, a worker with an intellectual disability, fails twice to respond appropriately to his supervisor, Helen.
Example 3 Context: A small garden center. Supervisor Helen greets Jim, who has an intellectual disability, at the start of the day.
1 Hel: Morning Jim 2 Jim: What’s that?
72 Janet Holmes
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
3 Hel: Er it’s a big tank it’s a pressurized tank full of water that’s gonna 4 Jim: ! Er Er" 5 Hel: Help clean our trays (0.7) 6 How are you (2.7) 7 How are you (2.6) 8 Cut your hair? 9 Jim: Yeah
This brief excerpt provides a number of indications that Jim is not behav- ing as expected of a participant in early morning workplace small talk. He fails to respond to Helen’s greeting “Morning.” Instead he asks a direct question oriented away from the social relationship and focused on some workplace equipment. At line 4, he interrupts with a hesitation noise indi- cating he wants to say something, but when Helen finishes her utterance at line 5, he fails to provide an appropriate conversational contribution. She then tries again with small talk (“How are you”) but again Jim fails to re- spond. There is a 2-sec pause after each of her repeated attempts to engage Jim at lines 6 and 7. Finally she manages to elicit a brief response by fo- cusing on something more “contentful” and personal (“Cut your hair?”). Jim consistently ignores the formulaic small talk tokens that are so impor- tant at the start of the day’s interactions. It was clearly considered un- friendly by coworkers if overtures such as “good morning,” “chilly eh,” or “nice day” were met by silence.
Second, in some work contexts, small talk develops beyond a couple of ritualistic utterances into more extended social talk. Small talk develops or expands in this way for a number of possible reasons: the participants may know each other well, the period since they last had contact may be considerable, they may be aware that there is nothing urgent awaiting the immediate attention of either. In such cases, a brief ritualistic small talk exchange at the boundaries of the speech event was clearly experienced as inadequate. In some of the team meetings we recorded, the team had clearly developed a culture of obligatory social talk after the weekend. People provided anecdotes and accounts of their weekend activities that went well beyond formulaic small talk, as illustrated in example 4, in which the team members set the scene for some extended social talk.
Example 4 Context: White-collar commercial large organization. This is the beginning of a reg- ular project team meeting. As the participants arrive, two team members, Peg and Emily, tease Sandy, the meeting chairperson.
Small Talk at Work 73
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
1 Peg: Sandy disgraced himself on the weekend 2 Emi: Yeah I think he told me about it 3 Tess: !Yes what’s this story" about your um stag party
Sandy is here given the floor for an extended turn of social talk that he does not take up at this point, although the story of his stag party gradually emerges collaboratively (cf. Coupland & Jaworski, this issue). When some- one had been away for a while a similar pattern prevailed in this organiza- tion; they were expected to provide some social talk before the meeting turned to business talk. But this pattern, although frequent, was by no means universal. In some workplaces, small talk was kept to a minimum and rarely developed into extended social talk. An extreme example in this regard was a special projects team in a very hierarchically structured commercial or- ganization. The team consisted of a group of predominantly male informa- tion technology experts who met weekly to discuss the progress of their project. Their meetings were notable for the remarkably small amount of small talk that occurred at the openings and closings.6 Indeed, the topic of the talk at the beginning of their meetings often involved related work on other projects that participants were engaged in. In other words, they used the time around the edges of the meeting not for social talk but rather to ad- vance other workplace business. This workplace culture illustrated one end of a continuum that we discuss in more detail elsewhere (see Holmes & Marra, in press). Clearly, knowing how much small talk to use on any oc- casion, and whether, when, and for how long to extend small talk into more personal or social talk, involves developing an awareness of the norms of the particular workplace culture in which you are operating.
Workers with intellectual disabilities did not always identify such norms. They did not realize, for example, that it was usually important to sustain small talk for a longer period when they or their coworker had been away from work ill, for instance, or when they had been away on a trip. Nor did they always pull their weight when a coworker engaged them in such talk. They sometimes failed to respond adequately (by the stan- dards of their coworkers), answering minimally in monosyllables, or non- verbally, thus allowing the topic to drop inappropriately quickly. In other words, they did not keep up their end of the social conversation. Example 5 illustrates this pattern. Mary does all the conversational “work” (cf. the women in Fishman’s [1983] analysis of conversations between heterosex- ual couples). Heath answers minimally rather than supplying extra infor- mation to keep the conversation alive.
74 Janet Holmes
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
Example 5 Context: Plant nursery. Mary, Heath’s supervisor, is working in the plant nursery alongside Heath, a worker with an intellectual disability. They are taking a break between tasks.
1 Mary: How’s your mum 2 Hea: Good 3 Mary: Is she (2.0) has her knee fixed up yet (2.6) 4 Hea: No 5 Mary: Has her knee got better now 6 Hea: Yes 7 Mary: That’s good
This example illustrates a common pattern: Often the worker with a disability provided only minimal responses to conversational overtures, failing to develop a topic and rarely initiating a new topic, leaving their coworker to carry the conversational burden. Heath seldom initiated a conversational topic. On occasions when a worker with a disability did ini- tiate small talk, they sometimes did so at an inappropriate moment (e.g., in the middle of a complicated task) rather than at the boundaries of work episodes. Getting the timing right is an aspect of the management of small talk that most people take for granted, but our research suggests that it re- quires attention and practice.
Third, our analysis confirmed the observations of others (e.g., Clyne, 1994, p. 87; Tannen, 1994, pp. 223–224) that the more senior person gen- erally brings workplace small talk to a close. It is the superior or supervi- sor in an interaction who has the deciding voice in licensing small talk. In example 2, for instance, the manager, Diana, is the person who shifts the talk back to task-oriented business talk. Again, this emerged as an impor- tant aspect of workplace interaction for workers to be sensitive to. Workers who persisted in trying to maintain social interaction when their supervi- sor clearly wished them to get on with their work clearly caused irritation. Although this point is obviously relevant to all workers, it was noteworthy that workers with intellectual disabilities more often missed the cues that their boss was ready to proceed to work. Utterances such as “What are you going to do today?” or “What are you doing next?” may seem obvious clues, but they did not always elicit a prompt, appropriate response. The analysis thus identified a number of systematic aspects of the distribution of small talk in workplace interaction that were highlighted by evidence of discomfort or irritation when workers with intellectual disabilities broke or ignored the “rules.”
Small Talk at Work 75
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
Functions of small talk. Small talk serves a range of functions in the workplace. As example 1 illustrates, it is often used for primarily social functions, expressing friendliness and constructing and maintaining posi- tive interpersonal relationships between those who work together. Small talk is an indispensable component of being a good workmate. In example 6, Jon and May indicate mutual good intentions as they make brief social contact through small talk.
Example 6 Context: Government department. Jon and May, two policy analysts, pass on the stairs.
1 Jon: Hello Hello Haven’t seen you for a while 2 May: !Hi " 3 Well I’ve been a bit busy 4 Jon: Must have lunch sometime 5 May: Yea good idea give me a ring
Jon’s use of “sometime” in his invitation (line 4) is an indication of the largely symbolic status of the interchange, and this is ratified by May’s equally nonspecific suggestion that he ring her; no precise time or date is mentioned. These are the kinds of crucial clues that the socially inexperienced sometimes missed; pressing for a precise date and time was one example of an inappro- priate response we noted in our data. Workers with intellectual disabilities sometimes failed to “read” the signals that no specific social commitment was being made, despite a coworker’s friendly offer.
The workers with intellectual disabilities in our data typically man- aged very basic small talk such as simple greetings and responses to un- threatening questions such as “Had a good weekend?” However, they sometimes had more problems with the extended social talk that devel- oped at smoko and lunchtime. Yet these are precisely the contexts that have been identified as problematic (e.g., Greenspan & Shoultz, 1981; Hagnar, Rogan, & Murphy, 1992; Hatton, 1998). In such contexts, as mentioned earlier, small talk is often a useful bridge to more extended social talk, as illustrated in the following example from a plant nursery where Hal is a worker with an intellectual disability.
Example 7 Context: Tea break in a garden center. Caroline, Sharon, Hal, and Des, the boss, are present. Hal is a worker with an intellectual disability. Line 7 refers to a piece of cake Caroline is eating.
76 Janet Holmes
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
1 Car: Cold eh 2 Sha: Chilly 3 Car: I know it’s like that all over the area 4 Sha: Need my morning cuppa to warm me up 5 Car: Would you like a biscuit Hal? 6 Hal: No 7 Des: They eat nice cake don’t they 8 You on a diet Hal? 9 Hal: Yeah
10 Des: Are you? Gotta lose weight do you 11 You’re getting a bit of a pot there
Our analysis shows that the kind of banter illustrated in lines 8 and 10 is common at sanctioned social breaks in many workplaces, but it is one of the most difficult aspects of work for many workers with intellectual disabilities. Teasing is typically a solidarity marker, especially in blue-collar workplaces (see Stubbe, 1999) and perhaps particularly among men (Hay, 1995). The fact that Hal is an integral participant in the workplace banter is thus a sign of his acceptance as a coworker (cf. Hagnar et al., 1992). However, he has not acquired skills that enable him to respond appropriately and is generally silent in response to such comments. Getting the tone right and keeping con- tributions appropriately short are real challenges for would-be participants.
Example 8 illustrates the ways in which Aaron, a worker with an in- tellectual disability in a different workplace, is the focus of teasing by his coworkers. Unlike many such workers in this kind of situation, he main- tains his good humor and manages to recover from his mistake, a reflection of the fact that he has developed some useful sociolinguistic skills. The topic is the common small talk topic of sport.
Example 8 Context: Small talk between workers at smoko in small business organization. Aaron is a worker with an intellectual disability.
1 Aar: You got Sky Tom? 2 Tom: Nah 3 Aar: Oh right 4 Mike: We got it 5 Aar: H- H- How do you watch the game? 6 Mike: He doesn’t 7 Tom: Well my neighbour’s got Sky so I go outside his window 8 and look through his window 9 Aar: Oh okay Oh right ((laughs)) That’s quite handy
10 Mike: Got a telescope We go straight through
Small Talk at Work 77
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
11 Aar: Yeah that’s handy Yeah ((laughs)) 12 Tom: Nah it was on it was on um yesterday 13 Aar: Yeah Yeah Yeah 14 Tom: Replayed on three 15 Aar: Oh Oh okay Oh yeah it was too yeah true yeah
The three men have been discussing a rugby game. Aaron takes the initia- tive (line 1) and asks Tom if he has the TV channel Sky, because the game was first relayed on Sky TV. It is clear from the tape that Aaron takes liter- ally Tom’s joke (lines 7 and 8) that he watches it through his neighbor’s window (a joke to which Mike contributes with his comment [line 10] about having a telescope to help). It is not clear whether Tom was teasing Aaron in particular in the first place or whether his “joke” was aimed at everyone (with the expectation that they would recognize the absurdity of his comment). In any case he relents (lines 12 and 14) and tells Aaron that in fact he watched the replay of the game on TV3. Aaron then realizes his mistake and recovers well (line 15).
Given the level of naiveté that Aaron betrayed in believing Tom ini- tially, it is possible that his coworkers cannot resist “having him on” in this way. There are certainly several more such instances in the data. However, the humor is always good-natured, and, as here, the coworkers generally rescue the butt of the joke and allow them to extricate themselves without too much loss of face. Such colleagues are good examples of “natural sup- ports” in the workplace (Hagnar et al., 1992)—coworkers who are well disposed and willing to assist the worker with the intellectual disability to learn to handle normal workplace social interaction.
The analysis of our observational and recorded data from workplaces where those with intellectual disabilities are currently working suggests, then, that they may have trouble with both of the features of small talk dis- cussed; that is, first, the distributional aspects of small talk (when it is obligatory or expected and when dispensable and peripheral) and, second, the social functions it serves (reestablishing good relations at the beginning of the day, strengthening social bonds between coworkers, etc.). Some very shy young workers regularly failed to greet fellow workers at all, looking at the floor and avoiding eye contact. Others were sporadic in their level of response. The analysis also suggests that workers with intellectual disabilities are not always aware of the predominantly social functions of small talk, and its largely peripheral status at many points in the work- place. They often treated small talk as if it was the main business, even when engaged in a task, whereas managing small talk effectively involves
78 Janet Holmes
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
using it in ways that indicate its secondary status much of the time, for ex- ample, dropping it when the task becomes complex, the meeting starts, or the boss indicates there has been enough of it.
IMPLICATIONS FOR WORKERS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES
How can workers with intellectual disabilities be helped to acquire the sociolinguistic skills needed for successful interaction at work? Expe- rienced native speakers of a language learn to analyze the interactions they observe and deduce the sociolinguistic rules from this exposure. However, natural exposure to an adequate range of workplace interactions is most unlikely for workers with intellectual disabilities. The amount of exposure and the level of generalization required is likely to prove too de- manding for such workers. What is possible, however, is a combination of preparatory training, together with on-the-job practice of what has been learned. Riches (1996) noted the following:
Correct worker behaviours and practices involve a number of social and interper- sonal skills and early intervention in these areas, either in conjunction with or before the worker transferred them to the work environment was found to be more effective than attempting to correct problems on the workfloor itself. (p. 9)
Although recognizing that this reflects a very normative approach, there is nevertheless considerable evidence that focused social skills training both before and during work placement contributes to improvements in the management of interpersonal interaction by workers with intellectual dis- abilities (Hatton, 1998; Hughes, Killian, & Fischer, 1996; La Greca, Stone, & Bell, 1983; Schloss & Wood, 1990). In particular, the combina- tion of carefully designed preparation along with the provision of “natural supports” (i.e., sympathetic and helpful coworkers) in the workplace ap- pears to be a very effective way of addressing the acquisition of the kinds of social skills outlined in this article (Hagnar, 1993, 1996; Hagnar et al., 1992; Huang & Cuvo, 1997; Rogan et al., 1993).
The challenge for the teacher is therefore to devise efficient ways of assisting workers to acquire basic sociolinguistic and pragmatic skills as preparation for genuine workplace interaction. The teacher of workers
Small Talk at Work 79
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
with intellectual disabilities needs to demonstrate some ingenuity in pro- viding opportunities for learners to observe, practice, and acquire the so- ciolinguistic skills involved in advantageously managing small talk in the workplace. Holmes and Fillary (2000) suggested a range of materials and exercises addressing the features identified in the research described in this article that aim to develop automaticity of response in situations where small talk is appropriate for most workers with intellectual disabil- ities, while offering more able workers the possibility of further under- standing the factors involved in the effective management of small talk at work.
CONCLUSION
Researchers concerned with the needs of workers whose intellectual disabilities suggest the positive potential for social remediative interven- tion have noted the dearth of materials that examine the social skills needed in the specific workplaces where they typically find employment (e.g., Black & Langone, 1997; Huang & Cuvo, 1997). The value of effec- tive social skills in the workplace for those with intellectual disabilities cannot be overestimated (e.g., Greenspan & Shoultz, 1981; Hagnar, 1996; Hatton, 1998; Storey et al., 1991). The data from the Wellington Language in the Workplace Project provide invaluable information on the way work- ers, including those with intellectual disabilities, actually interact in a number of genuine New Zealand workplaces.
Using data from a range of New Zealand workplaces, this article has examined two potentially problematic aspects of small talk in the work- place for workers with intellectual disabilities: the distribution of small talk, namely where, when, and how often it occurs; and the functions of small talk, focusing particularly on the important interpersonal and social functions that are fundamental to small talk at work. This analysis of the sociopragmatic skills involved in managing small talk at work can provide a basis for developing materials to prepare workers with intellectual dis- abilities for the kinds of interaction they will encounter daily in their workplaces and assist them in establishing the kinds of automatic social routines that will provide for a good start at work. Knowing how to man- age small talk clearly plays a big part in the process of integrating into the workplace.
80 Janet Holmes
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
NOTES
1 The definition of intellectual disability adopted for the purposes of this research is based on the analysis provided by Greenspan and Love (1997). They defined intel- lectual disability as a condition marked by significant deficits in everyday (i.e., so- cial and practical) intelligence reflected in the perception by professionals and laypeople that a person needs special services or supports to succeed in everyday life.
2 For a detailed discussion of the relationship between social talk and small talk see Holmes (2000).
3 In this research, the relevant definition of workers with an intellectual disability is people who require support to function effectively in the workplace.
4 Justine Coupland notes that the role that Tom is assigned by Des’s teasing remarks could be regarded as rather challenging. It is certainly true that responding to verbal play with anything other than laughter requires considerable verbal skill.
5 The research described in this article was funded by the New Zealand Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, with support from the Eastern Institute of Technol- ogy. I here express appreciation to Marianne McLeod from Supported Employment New Zealand and to members of the Language in the Workplace Project team, and especially Rose Fillary, Maria Stubbe, and Bernadette Vine, for their contributions to the research on which this article is based.
6 Because the video camera was switched on before anyone entered the meeting room and was not switched off until everyone had left, we are confident that all potential small talk was captured for the meetings of this group.
REFERENCES
Beyer, S., & Kilsby, M. (1995). Day service comparisons (Welsh Centre for Learning Disabilities-Applied Research Unit Research Highlights No. 6). Cardiff, England: Welsh Centre for Learning Disabilities, Applied Research Unit.
Black, R. S., & Langone, J. (1997). Social awareness and transition to employment for ado- lescents with mental retardation. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 214–222.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cam- bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Butterworth, J., & Strauch, J. D. (1994). The relationship between social competence and success in the competitive workplace for persons with mental retardation. Educa- tion and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 29, 118–133.
Small Talk at Work 81
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
Button, G. (1992). Answers as interactional products: Two sequential practices used in job interviews. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 212–231). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Candlin, C. N. (2000). General editor’s preface. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. xiii–xx). London: Longman.
Clyne, M. (1994). Inter-cultural communication at work. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Coupland, J. (Ed.). (2000). Small talk. London: Longman.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 1–65). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Ferguson, C. A. (1976). The structure and use of politeness formulas. Language in Society, 5, 137–151.
Fishman, P. M. (1983). Interaction: The work women do. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender, and society (pp. 89–101). Rowley, MA: New- bury House.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row.
Greenspan, S., & Love, P. F. (1997). Social intelligence and developmental disorder: Men- tal retardation, learning disabilities and autism. In W. MacLean (Ed.), Ellis’handbook of mental deficiency, psychological theory, and research (3rd ed., pp. 311–342). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Greenspan, S., & Shoultz, B. (1981). Why mentally retarded adults lose their jobs: Social competence as a factor in work adjustment. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 2, 23–38.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Interviewing in intercultural situations. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 302–327). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hagnar, D. (1993). Working together: Workplace culture, supported employment, and peo- ple with disabilities. Cambridge, England: Brookline Books.
Hagnar, D. (1996). Social skills at work. Paper presented at the Association of Supported Employment NZ Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.
Hagnar, D. C., & Helm, D. T. (1994). Qualitative methods in rehabilitation research. Reha- bilitation Counselling Bulletin, 37, 290–303.
Hagnar, D., Rogan, P., & Murphy, S. (1992). Facilitating natural supports in the workplace: Strategies for support consultants. Journal of Rehabilitation, 58, 29–34.
Hatton, C. (1998). Pragmatic language skills in people with intellectual disabilities: A review. Journal of Intellectual and Development Disability, 23, 79–100.
Hay, J. (1994). Jocular abuse in mixed gender interaction. Wellington Working Papers in Linguistics, 6, 26–55.
Hay, J. (1995) Gender and humour: Beyond a joke. Unpublished master’s thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
82 Janet Holmes
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
Holmes, J. (2000). Doing collegiality and keeping control at work: Small talk in govern- ment departments. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 32–61). London: Longman.
Holmes, J., & Fillary, R. (2000). Handling small talk at work: Challenges for workers with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Edu- cation, 47, 273–291.
Holmes, J., Fillary R., McLeod, M., & Stubbe, M. (2000). Developing skills for successful so- cial interaction in the workplace. New Zealand Journal of Disability Studies, 7, 70–86.
Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (in press). Having a laugh at work: How humour contributes to workplace culture. Journal of Pragmatics.
Holmes, J., Stubbe, M., & Vine, B. (1999). Constructing professional identity: “Doing power” in policy units. In S. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Talk, work, and institu- tional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings (pp. 1–35). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Huang, W., & Cuvo, A. (1997). Social skills training for adults with mental retardation in job-related settings. Behavior Modification, 21, 3–44.
Hughes, C., Killian, D. J., & Fischer, G. M. (1996). Validation and assessment of a conver- sational interaction intervention. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100, 493–509.
Kuiper, K. (1991). Sporting formulae in New Zealand English: Two models of male soli- darity. In J. Cheshire (Ed.), English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 200–209). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
La Greca, A. M., Stone, W. L., & Bell, C. R. (1983). Facilitating the vocational-interper- sonal skills of mentally retarded individuals. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 270–278.
Laver, J. (1981). Linguistic routines and politeness in greeting and parting. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 289–304). The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
Parent, W. S., Kregel, J., Metzler, H. M. D., & Twardzik, G. (1992). Social integration in the workplace. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 28–38.
Riches, V. C. (1996). Everyday social interaction (2nd ed.). Sydney: Maclennan & Petty. Roberts, C., Davies, E., & Jupp, T. (1992). Language and discrimination: A study of com-
munication in multi-ethnic workplaces. London: Longman. Rogan, P., Hagnar, D., & Murphy, S. (1993). Natural supports: Reconceptualising job
coach roles. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 275–281.
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conver- sation. In G. Button & J. R. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Schloss, P. J., & Wood, C. E. (1990). Effect of self-monitoring on maintenance and gener- alization of conversational skills of persons with mental retardation. Mental Retarda- tion, 28, 105–113.
Storey, K., Rhodes, L., Sandow, D., Loewinger, H., & Petheridge, R. (1991). Direct observa- tion of social interactions in a supported employment setting. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 53–63.
Small Talk at Work 83
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
Stubbe, M. (1998). Researching language in the workplace: A participatory model. ALS98 Papers in Proceedings. Retrieved August 30, 1999 from http://www.cltr.uq.edu. au/als98/
Stubbe, M. (1999). “Just do it…!”: Discourse strategies for “getting the message across” in a factory production team. In J. Henderson (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. Retrieved August 2000 from http://www.arts. uwa.edu.au/LingWWW/als99/proceedings
Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5. London: Virago. Tracy, K., & Naughton, J. M. (2000). Institutional identity-work: A better lens. In J.
Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 62–83). London: Longman. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
84 Janet Holmes
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity o
f N ew
Y or
k at
A lb
an y]
a t 1
1: 46
0 7
Ja nu
ar y
20 14
