Talk:Conversation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Talk Shows

I don't rightly see how TV talk shows are good examples of conversation. Indeed, far from it, I'd say. On "entertainment" talk shows, the "conversation" is often pre-scripted. On "current-event" talk shows, many of the guests are there simply to represent a certain known point of view, and not at all to listen to what anyone else has to say. So I certainly think that the reference to talk shows ought to be removed. In fact, someone might want to add a section summarizing critiques of talk shows. I know this issue is much discussed by some people, perhaps by Postman, among others.


Absolutely agree on this. It's also an issue that the mentioned talk shows are only known by US people, so it's not a good idea to mention these in the first line of the article. Moving the Talk Shows topic to the Types of Conversation section can be a temporary solution. Kuteni 13:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC) comment je mappele

[edit] Phenomena?

Isn't it a bit odd to call it a phenomenon when "the conversation suddenly dies when everyone simultaneously runs out of things to say"?

It's obvious that when nobody has anything to say, nobody will be talking. This is neither a great leap in logic nor counterintuitive. I'd change it if I wasn't such a noob or had an idea what to change it to.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.4.137 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 29 September 2005


[edit] The first sentence seemed rather pretentious to me, so I altered it a bit

Conversation is ...which make up the reality in which we reside. -> Conversation is ...which make up the world we live in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.66.91 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 5 August 2007

[edit] Scope of The Accompanying Article

[edit] topic of this article

Conversationhas many meaning, and only some of them are covered here. They overlap to such an extent that it might be better include them within a single article rather than attempt to compose an accurate disambiguation page. With all respect to the previous comments, there are both social and informational meanings to consider, and a great many links to multiple topics in sociology, psychology, politics, history, literature, and communication theory to insert, even though I may not be the best person to fill in all of this. Perhaps no indiviual person is. DGG 00:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smalltalk

This page should mention "Smalltalk", or better still a new article "Smalltalk" should be created, with the already existing article of that name being moved to Smalltalk (software).-- ExpImptalkcon 23:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Small talk is a standard term that we have as the title of an article; "smalltalk" in the sense closely related to this article is an odd usage, and potentially an obnoxious affectation.
--Jerzy•t 18:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banter

_ _ Banter is a Rdr here, perhaps better to small talk. Should they be separate articles? If so, Conversation needs to refer and link to Small talk.
_ _ In any case, it is perhaps worth discussing the expression "gay banter", one place or the other? Where it is not meant "small talk" among gay people or about gay matters, or perhaps "about lame subjects", it is occasionally noted as being used in the expression "Enough of this gay banter", e.g.

It's a Monty Python thing, John Cleese says it to the accountant who wants to be a lion tamer. I think so anyway, it could be from somewhere else.

_ _ It's indeed in the lion tame sketch, but I think of the 5 words as a (perhaps) Victorian trite catchphrase for "Well, let's take up the matter at hand", and "gay" meaning simply "light-hearted". Should be somewhere where "banter" will lead readers.
--Jerzy•t 19:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] relevance unclear, can anyone suggest how to exploit for this article?

[edit] Tannen-related content

[edit] Tannen easier to link if bowdlerised, maybe

Google Wiki Tannen just recently brought me into this part of Wikipedia ...

Suddenly now I'm guessing the Wikipedia neutral point of view could give us a usefully bowdlerised slice of Dr. Tannen's work ... anyone agree?

The conversation I was having elsewhere included the snippet:

///

Do you already know & love the sociolinguistic work of D. Tannen at George Washington U?

I can’t exaggerate how great I think that work is. It’s like structured programming from Wirth, communicating sequential processes from Hoare, or usability design from Norman – it gives understandable structure to what before appeared to be random data. The domain isn’t computer science, but instead conversation between Americans.

Tannen points out that Americans mostly split into two different verbal subcultures, one agonistic, one synergistic. Only in synergistic culture can you plainly say “Please help” or “I’m sorry that happened” or “How do I do that”. Agonistic culture says other things more plainly, but specifically those polite efforts towards working more together instead come across garbled, as “I’m incompetent”, “I’m insecure”, and “I’m clueless”.

But Tannen’s work since the 90’s may be less useful in politically correct environments than it could be, because the most compelling anecdotes come so often from contrasting female & male speech in the USA (and political correctness requires us not to make distinctions between persons & nations).

1987 | http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/tellit.htm | http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/popular.htm#popart | http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend

The less direct and more carefully neutral point of view, by contrast - "synergistic" and "agonistic" rather than "female" and "male" - fits into politically correct environments without objection.

/// —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:37, 15 April 2005 (talk • contribs) 67.188.98.5

[edit] Tannen easier to link if unmarked, maybe

Speaking in terms of:

///

http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/nyt062093.htm

Marked Women, Unmarked Men

by D. Tannen

The New York Times Magazine, June 20, 1993

///

I'm looking to find an unmarked presentation of the same ideas, to disseminate broadly in politically correct environments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 01:08, 7 May 2005 (talk • contribs) 67.188.98.5

[edit] erm, excuse me

but wouldn't it be better if you just made it quick, LIKE INM REAL LIFE! which is the point, I thought, it would be best, to just say.

Conversation;
Taking turns to speak.

That's my idea.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.141.248 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 2 January 2006

That's called a dict-def, which can be useful in the lead sent. But it's no substitute for an article.
--Jerzy•t 18:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A conversation is communication by two or more people?

Illich: Who you are and even more deeply they change the way your senses work. Traditionally the gaze was conceived as a way of fingering, of touching. The old Greeks spoke about looking as a way of sending out my psychopodia [?], my soul's limbs, to touch your face and establish a relationship between the two of us which is this relationship, and this relationship was called vision. Then, after Galileo at the time of Kepler, the idea developed that the eyes are receptors into which light brings something from the outside, keeping you separate from me even when I look at you. Even if I gaze at you. Even if I enjoy your face. People began to conceive of their eyes as some kind of camera obscura. In our age people conceive of their eyes and actually use them as if they were part of a machinery. They speak about interface. Anybody who says to me, I want to have an interface with you, I say please go somewhere else, to a toilet or wherever you want, to a mirror. Anybody who says, I want to communicate with you, I say can't you talk? Can't you speak? Can't you recognize that there's a deep otherness between me and you, so deep that it would be offensive for me to be programmed in the same way you are.

...

Brown: Ivan just mentioned you had a focus on these larger societal issues and now you're coming to focus in recent years on the more immediate friendship. I'm very struck by the fact that you've always when I've used the word communication and then you say computers communicate but people talk, people have a conversation. I think the same thing is also true of the word relationship. You can have a relationship among instruments or between instruments, but you can only have a friendship between two people or among human beings. I guess one of the obvious points about the modern sophisticated world would be the technological terms that invade our own understanding of ourselves and our immediate life.

Ivan Illich with Jerry Brown, We the People, KPFA - March 22, 1996 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.46.81 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 5 August 2007

[edit] Way off topic

[edit] oi oi

good afternoon i would like some advise on frogs please???? anyone out there??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamwkd (talk • contribs) 14:06, 13 July 2007

always don't forget converses(shoes) adorable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.236.79 (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)