4.1 Introduction
The previous chapter examined social practices and the sequential structure of service encounters in delicatessens from a cross-cultural (“global”) perspective of variation. It compared the preference for requests for service and interactional patterns in two sociocultural settings, one in the United States and one in Mexico. This chapter takes an intra-lingual (“local”) view of variation, and analyzes two varieties of the same language, namely, varieties of two regions in the United States and two in Mexico (Mexican Spanish). As noted in the Introduction, intra-lingual pragmatic variation is contrastive by nature. It examines variation at the subnational level and at various levels of pragmatic analysis (e.g. actional, interactional, organizational) (see Chapter 1, Section 1.4.6 and Barron and Schneider Reference Barron and Schneider2009; Schneider Reference Schneider and Fried2010; Schneider and Barron Reference Placencia, Schneider and Barron2008). I adopt a sociolinguistic perspective to analyze regional variation at the pragmatic level, including variation in the use and non-use of requests for service, opening and closing exchanges, and the co-construction of the request–response sequence. The macro-social factor of gender is also analyzed to examine differences in communicative language use between customers and vendors when buying and selling. Each of the service encounters presented here occurs in a community of practice (Mills Reference Mills2003; Wenger Reference Wenger1998) where buyers and sellers meet at a designated location to negotiate a sales transaction. Following Mills, buyers and sellers negotiate service based on previous sociocultural expectations and “with what they assume are community-of-practice norms for linguistic behavior” (Reference Mills2003: 3).
This chapter is divided into two main sections: intra-lingual pragmatic variation in supermarket delicatessens in two regions of the US. Midwest (Section 4.2) and in small shops in two regions of central Mexico (4.3). Each of these sections includes an overview of the settings and data collection procedures. I examine pragmatic variation at the actional and interactional levels (see Chapter 1, Section 1.4.6). I will also analyze shifts of alignment (Goffman Reference Goffman1981) in the interactional roles as talk changes from transactional to relational talk (see Introduction, Figure 1). In Section 4.4 I present the conclusions of the chapter.
4.2 Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in US supermarket delicatessens
Although the Midland dialect region can be difficult to classify, Labov (Reference Labov and Eckert1991) considered it part of the third dialect of American English, based on the fact that it shows characteristics from neither the Northern nor the Southern dialect.1 Both of the dialects under investigation belong to the Midland region (Indiana and Ohio), but the locations from which the data were collected are approximately 350 miles apart. Bloomington, Indiana, belongs to the South Midland region and is located approximately 53 miles south of Indianapolis, the state's capital. On the other hand, the city of Solon, Ohio, belongs to the Midland dialect and is located in the northeastern region of the state. The suburb of Solon is located 18 miles from Cleveland and approximately 146 miles northeast of Columbus, the state capital. (See Introduction, Figure 2, for the geographic locations in the United States.)
Most research on sociolinguistic regional variation is largely restricted to commonalities and differences found at the phonological and morphosyntactic levels (Ash Reference Ash, Murray and Lee Simon2006; Fogle Reference Fogle2008; Labov et al. Reference Labov, Ash and Boberg2006; Wolfram and Schilling-Estes Reference Wolfram and Schilling-Estes2006). In this chapter, I examine pragmatic variation (e.g. ways of expressing a request for service; presence or absence of internal modification; presence or absence of address terms) in regions that are located at almost opposite ends of the Midland dialect region, approximately 370 miles/596 kilometers apart).
4.2.1 Setting and data collection procedures
See Introduction (Table 1) for a description of the corpus in Indiana and Ohio. The service encounters were audio-recorded in one supermarket delicatessen (Indiana) and one indoor market (Ohio). These settings were comparable in various ways: both delicatessens were covered, sold similar products, and in each setting the delicatessen was located toward the back of the supermarket. Further, customers came to each delicatessen for products such as cold meats, cheeses, and salads. The settings were also comparable with regard to the position of the counter (i.e. refrigerator displaying cold meats and salads) dividing the server and the customer, and the location of the tape recorder (over the counter, next to one of the weighing scales). After the sales transaction was completed, the customers paid for the product at the market checkout. These markets are characterized by their regular clientele (adult males and females), and a demographic that is best described as white American middle class. Both stores opened at about 7:00 a.m. and closed at about 7:00 p.m. The servers included a variety of male and female vendors in their 30s and 40s, but female clerks predominated during data collection.
Approximately 30 hours of audio-recorded face-to-face interactions were collected (15 hours in each region), making for a total of 400 complete service encounters (200 in Indiana and 200 in Ohio). For comparability purposes, the gender distribution was similar in both settings, with female customers representing the majority in each region: 145 female customers (72.5%) and 55 male customers (27.5%). With regard to the quality of the recording, the interactions were audible, although at times it was difficult to hear some sections due to interference from simultaneous transactions, such as overlapping talk, as well as background talk from bystanders. For the characteristics of the delicatessen, see Chapter 3 (Figure 3.1), which illustrates the position of the customer and server, the counter, the display of food products, and the location of the digital recorder.
4.2.2 Opening the interaction
Similarities and differences were noted in the interactional patterns between US customers in Indiana and Ohio when initiating the transaction. Interactions in both regions began with the customers’ presence and the alignment of the participants’ roles, but with one main difference: the summons–response sequence in the Ohio interactions included the server's call of the ticket number, while the Indiana data did not feature this sequence. The exchange in example (1) shows the beginning of the sales transaction, including the opening and the request–response sequence (customer [C] and server [S]):
[1] Opening the interaction (Ohio data: male server; female customer)
01 ((Customer standing in front of counter)) 02 S: 43 ↑ 44 ↑ ((calling ticket number)) 03 C: right here 04 S: come over 05 C: hi, 06 → can I have a quarter pound of uh, turkey salami ↑ 07 S: a quarter of a pound ↑ 08 C: yes, please ↓
As shown in the exchange in (1), the beginning of the interaction is realized by means of verbal and non-verbal moves. The mere presence of the customer serves as a summons, followed by the server's call for the next customer with final rising intonation (↑) (lines 01–04). As mentioned in Chapter 3, the summons–answer sequence serves to establish alignment and seek common ground (Clark Reference Clark1996). Once the participants’ roles have been aligned, the request for service is introduced, followed by compliance or non-compliance with the request (lines 05–08). In both regions this sequence was prefaced by the opening exchange without any intervening non-transactional talk (see Introduction, Figure 1 and Chapter 7 for an analysis of relational talk). The sequential structure of the openings in delicatessens coincides with service encounters in small shops in France (Kerbrat-Orecchioni Reference Kerbrat-Orecchioni2006). In the next section I will focus on the different ways to issue a request for service in the Indiana and Ohio regions.
4.2.3 Pragmalinguistic variation in the request for service
A request for service can be realized in different ways (request variants) and with various degrees of directness and indirectness. That is, the illocutionary force of the request is realized through different variants. Figure 4.1 shows the distribution of the first customer-initiated request for service identified in each region (400 transactions [200 per region]).
Figure 4.1 Distribution of requests for service in supermarket delicatessens in two US regions
Although both regions used all seven variants to express a request for service, intra-lingual similarities and differences were noted with regard to the preference of strategy use and the placement of the request. In both regions conventional indirectness was the predominant variant utilized to express the request for service (Indiana [40% or 80/200]; Ohio [43% or 86/200]). No major gender differences were noticed between the male and female customers from each region, that is, both males and females used this variant with almost equal preference. Two of the seven variants were more frequently employed by the Ohio customers: elliptical (31% or 62/200) and imperative forms (5.5% or 11/200) and less by the Indiana customers (elliptical [13.5% or 27/200]; imperative [4% or 8/200]). The Yes/No interrogative variant (interpreted as a request for service) was used equally only once in each region by a male customer. Although expressing a request for service using the imperative form was used slightly more frequently by the Ohio customers (e.g. ‘give me’ or ‘let me have’), the frequencies are rather too low to make generalizations, as no significant gender differences were observed. A Chi-square test for independence compared the frequencies of use and non-use of the elliptical variant in each region; the results were significant, X2 (1,400) = 16.7, p < 0.0001. This suggests a high probability that use of this strategy between customers of Indiana and Ohio is region-specific. Further, both male and female customers in Ohio employed this strategy more frequently (men [25.5% or 14/55 interactions]; females [33.1% or 48/145] than the Indiana customers (men [16.4% or 9/55]; female [7.6% or 11/145]). The only mention of the product (eliding the verb) was the preferred request variant, often selected by Ohio female customers more than the Indiana females. As shown in example (2), most elliptical requests in both regions were delivered with a high terminal, as in the following exchange:
[2] Elliptical request with high terminal (Ohio data: male server; female customer)
01 S: Number four ↑ 02 C: four ↓ 03 → half a pound of the Bavarian ham ↑ 04 S: ham ↑ 05 C: yeah ↓
In the exchange in (2), after alignment of participant roles (lines 01–02), the elliptical request was realized with a high terminal (↑), followed by a confirmation–response sequence (lines 04–05). This three-turn sequence (lines 03–05) was frequent in both regions. The prosodic modifiers contribute to the interpretation and accomplishment of the joint actions: an elliptical request with a high terminal to secure uptake and a low terminal to signal compliance of the request.
Regional differences were also noted in the Indiana customers, who showed a higher preference of strategy use than the Ohio customers. The three strategies were: want statement (Indiana [21.5 % or 43/200]; Ohio [11.5% or 23/200]), need statement (Indiana [10.5 % or 21/200]; Ohio [4.5% or 9/200]), and assertion (e.g. ‘I'll have/need/do/take’) (Indiana [10% or 20/200]; Ohio [4% or 8/200]). Thus, whereas the Ohio customers (mainly females) showed a strong preference for naming the product to express a request for service (e.g. ‘uh:: half a pound of turkey ↓’) (elliptical request), the Indiana customers named the verb (e.g. ‘want,’ ‘need’, or ‘I'll take/need/do/take’) to express the illocutionary force more explicitly (fully verbalized requests). Examples of the request variants displayed in Figure 4.1 (followed by the server's response) are provided in (3):
[3] Variants of the request for service in Indiana and Ohio (US delicatessens)
a. Conventional indirectness (Ohio)
Male customer: → Can I get, uh, a half pound of your Colby Jack? Female server: alright. b. Elliptical (Ohio)
Male customer: → Half a pound of turkey Male server: here you go. c. Want statement (Ohio)
Female customer: Hi, Ummm, I want um, a pound of corned beef Server: corned beef ↑ Female customer: yes please ↓ d. Need statement (Indiana)
Female customer: → I need a pound and a half of smokehouse ham Female Server: a pound and a half of smokehouse ↓ e. Assertions using I'll have/get/do/take (Ohio)
Female customer: → Right here. I'll take a pound of the hard salami please. Male server: anything else? f. Imperative forms (Indiana)
Female customer: → OK, ah, give me– give me a fourth of a pound of hard salami Male server: a fourth of salami ↑ Male customer: yeah, let me get a pound of your, uh, Boar's Head – uh, maple honey turkey ↑ Server: any particular way you want it cut? g. Direct question interpreted as a request for service (Ohio)
01 Male server: May I help you sir? 02 Male customer: → do you have Chicago hot dogs ↑ 03 Server: the big one or quarter pound? 04 Customer: the big one.
Each of the requests above was realized in one turn, followed by the server's response. The predominant strategy, conventional indirectness (3a), was realized through preparatory strategies, namely, query preparatory (ability), such as ‘can you …?’ A second variant was an elliptical request. As pointed out by previous researchers (e.g. Kerbrat-Orecchioni Reference Kerbrat-Orecchioni2006), an elliptical request (examples 2 and 3b) is a complex utterance because the implicit verb is elided, and thus, the illocutionary force of this blunt yet appropriate request may be interpreted as a command, want, or need statement. However, in the context of service encounters, the mention of the product constitutes a sociocultural expectation, and thus, an appropriate request for service. A similar finding was noted in French (Kerbrat-Orecchioni Reference Kerbrat-Orecchioni2006) and Spanish service encounters (Shively Reference Shively2011). The second blunt request, although infrequent, was realized by means of the imperative form, ‘give me,’ or the ‘let me + verb’ expression, as shown in (3f). Finally, a request such as (3g) can potentially have two pragmatic interpretations, namely, a pre-sequence as a request for availability of information, or a request for service. As initially shown by Merritt (Reference Merritt1976b), these interrogatives are interpreted by the hearer as a request for service when followed by other questions (example 3g, lines 02–03).
Furthermore, regional variation was noted in the use of internal modifiers to soften a request for service, as illustrated in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2 Distribution of internal modifiers in supermarket delicatessens in two US regions
Internal modification of the request for service was infrequent in both regions: Indiana customers used a higher frequency and wider variety of internal modifiers (32.5% or 65/200) than the Ohio customers (21.5% or 43/200). Although the main function of internal modifiers is to soften the negative impact of unwelcome consequences (in contexts not related to service encounters [Blum-Kulka et al. Reference Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper1989; Márquez Reiter Reference Marquez-Reiter2000]), in the service encounters under examination, unmitigated requests represent a sociocultural expectation in both regions.
With regard to gender differences, both male and female customers from the Indiana region utilized a higher frequency and wider variety of elements to attenuate the force of the request (males [31% or 17/55); females [33% or 48/145) than the Ohio customers, whose preference for internal modification was infrequent and unvaried (males [10.9% or 6/55]; females [25.5% or 37/145]). Specifically, the Indiana customers used forms such as ‘please,’ the conditional (e.g. ‘I'd like’), epistemic phrases (e.g. ‘I believe,’ ‘I guess’), and combinations of two or more modifiers, whereas the Ohio customers limited their modification to a few instances of ‘please’ and the conditional. Example (4) shows a want statement mitigated by means of the conditional (‘I'd like’), the politeness form ‘please,’ and a prosodic downgrader with a high terminal (↑) in the same turn (line 02). The prosodic marker, in a declarative request, serves to secure the hearer's uptake, but it also functions as an internal modifier to express a politeness effect, softening the request (internal modifiers are marked in boldface).
[4] Mitigated request (Indiana data)
01 Female clerk: Can I help you? 02 Male customer: → ah I'd like a– pound of the peppered turkey breast please ↑ 03 Clerk: how would you like that sliced? 04 Customer: oh uh– just thin for sandwiches but– not quite shaved.
No major differences were noted with regard to the placement of the request in the opening interaction. In both regions, the request for service was predominantly positioned in the second or (less frequently) in the fourth turn, following the summons–response sequence or the greeting response sequence. In the Ohio data the request for service was placed in the fourth turn (29% or 58/200) slightly more frequently than in the Indiana data (16.5% or 33/200). The examples in (5) show the placement of the request in the opening of the interaction, in the second (5a) and fourth turn (5b), respectively:
[5] Sequential placement of the request in US delicatessens
a. Indiana; female interlocutors
Server: Can I help you, ma'am? Customer: → I want a half a pound of the Lacy Swiss cheese. b. Ohio; male interlocutors
Server: 41 ↑ Customer: right here. Server: hi, how are you sir? Customer: not bad, → can I get a pound of the bone-in ham? – a three-quarter pound, a little thicker than you have it here. Server: well, we're gonna have to slice it.
Research on pragmatic variation in other contexts is scarce. The few studies that examine variation in one or two varieties of the same language show variability with regard to the type of strategy used and the degree of intensification in the request. For example, in small shops in France (Lyon) (Kerbrat-Orecchioni Reference Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Hickey and Stewart2004, Reference Kerbrat-Orecchioni2006, Reference Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Kerbrat-Orecchioni and Traverso2008), the majority of requests for service were realized by means of softened formulations in conventional indirect expressions, using the conditional or please (e.g. Je voudrais un pain aux céréales ‘I would like a granary loaf’). Similar results were found by Traverso (Reference Traverso2006) who examined service encounters in Lyon at a shoe store. The results from both US regions showed that requests for service were infrequently modified through politeness formulas as well as the use of the conditional, and the past tense to express politeness.
4.2.4 Request–response sequence
In both regions, the negotiation of service was accomplished by means of coordinated joint actions during the different phases of the interaction, namely, opening, pre-sequences, request-response sequence, clarification requests, and closing sequence.
Interactions in the Indiana delicatessen were longer than the Ohio encounters. Longer interactions, particularly during the request-response sequence, were often the result of longer attempts at negotiating a generic request, in which case the request was negotiated and co-constructed by the server and the customer. Example (6) shows an example of a generic request, followed by the server's advice:
[6] Sequential structure of a request–response sequence (Indiana delicatessen: male customer; female clerk)
01 ((Presence of customer)) 02 S: Can I help whoever's next? 03 C: uh, yes, 04 → um, I need the ham or roast beef on sale 05 C: we have the, uh, Boar's Head sweet sliced ham. It's not really sweet. 06 S: OK. I want to get a pound of that. 07 C: alright 08 S: would you like to try a slice of that? 09 C: sure 10 S: ((delivers sample)) 11 C: ’bout half a pound. ((12 turns of transcript omitted))
The interaction (6) is realized through coordinated joint actions that accomplish the request–response sequence. The transaction is preceded by a summons–answer sequence, which includes the presence of the customer and the identification of the participants’ roles to establish alignment (lines 01–03). The transaction opens with the customer's generic request for service (line 04, need statement). Generic requests were often followed by either additional requests for information on the part of the server, or by the server's advice and the customer's compliance (line 05–07). A generic request lacks specific details of the product (brand, thickness, amount), and as a result, the server inquires about that information across the interaction. In generic requests the server adopts the role of advice-giver. Immediately following the request–response sequence, the Indiana servers inserted an optional offer–response sequence by inviting the customer to try a sample of the product while he/she was waiting (lines 08–10). In line 11 the customer reaffirms the amount of the product. Offer–response sequences were absent from the Ohio interactions.
Unlike the Indiana generic request in (6), example (7) shows an interaction taken from the Ohio data, in which most requests for service were brief and specific. In the Ohio corpus, request–response sequences were shorter than those in the Indiana data.
[7] Sequential structure at an Ohio delicatessen (male customer; female clerk)
01 ((presence of customer)) 02 S: Number 4 ↑ 03 C: here 04 S: hi 05 C: hi 06 → just a half pound of the smoked turkey breast ↓ 07 ((beeping of scale)) 08 S: anything else sir? 09 C: nothing for me 10 S: ((hands item to customer)) 11 C: thank you.
The encounters in the Ohio data began with the server's call for the customer's number (lines 01–03), followed by a greeting exchange (lines 04–05). The request for service is realized in the form of an elliptical request and a low terminal (↓) (line 06). Unlike the generic request in (6), the elliptical request in (7) is specific as it contains the amount, name, and type of the product in a single turn (line 06). With a specific request delivered in one turn, the customer shows control over the interaction. In the closing sequence, the server's request for additional information was often accompanied by a non-verbal action, namely, the delivery of the product and the customer's expressions of thanks (lines 09–11).
The negotiation of service between the customer and the server involves coordinated social actions realized across multiple turns. Each of these actions (e.g. greeting exchanges, requests for availability, request–response sequence, clarification requests, terminal exchanges) is sequentially organized throughout the entire interaction until a mutual agreement is reached by both parties. In addition to the language used to accomplish the transaction (core-service talk), instances of relational talk (e.g. small talk) were common in both regions, as in example (8) from the Ohio data (address forms are marked in boldface):
[8] Relational talk embedded in instrumental talk (Ohio; males)
01 S: [Hey, 'sup Mike! 02 C: [hey, 'sup bro’ 03 S: how are ya? 04 C: alright 05 S: → how can I help you? 06 C: uh-gimme::: three quarter pound of Sara Lee – shaved ↓
The interaction in (8) opens with relational talk by means of a reciprocal greeting (01–04) commonly used in colloquial conversation. Phatic talk in this opening exchange includes informal greeting (e.g. ‘hey’), forms of address such as first names (‘Mike’), solidarity vocatives (‘bro’), and reduced colloquial expressions characteristic of male-to-male informal conversation that indicate familiarity between the interlocutors. Alignment of the interaction (Goffman Reference Goffman1981) begins with a change of frame from phatic talk (01–04) to transactional talk with the request for service in the form of an unmitigated direct request (‘give me’). This imperative form expresses solidarity and reinforces the links of affiliation between the interlocutors (lines 05–06) (in Chapter 7, Section 7.3.2, I further explain interactional alignment in changes from transactional to non-transactional talk).
Overall, intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the Indiana and Ohio regions was examined with regard to preference when requesting service (frequency, request variant used, internal modification) (actional level), as well as the amount of negotiation regarding a generic or specific request across multiple turns (interactional level). It was found that the gender of the customer influenced the type of request selected to accomplish a joint action. It should be noted that in both regions customers visit the delicatessen department on a regular basis. Customers and servers of both regions often engaged in relational talk (see Chapter 7 for pragmatic and discourse functions of non-transactional talk). Owing to the degree of familiarity between the customers and servers, a wide selection of forms of address were used, such as first names, ‘hon,’ ‘ma'am,’ ‘sir,’ ‘honey’, ‘sweetheart,’ ‘babe,’ ‘man’ (in Chapter 8 I provide an analysis of the pragmatic and discourse functions of address forms in US and Mexican service encounters).
4.3 Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in Mexican small shops
Mexico shows a complex dialectal regional distribution, ranging from four general regions (North, Central, Coastal regions, and Yucatán Peninsula) to at least ten regional dialects. Although Mexico City and Guanajuato belong to the same dialectal region (Central Mexico), they show regional differences at phonological and lexical levels (e.g. Boyd-Bowman Reference Boyd-Bowman1960; Lipski Reference Lipski1994; Martín Butragueño Reference Martín Butragueño, Villanueva and Butragueño2014). Guanajuato is located 225 miles (approximately 340 km) northwest of Mexico City. It shares borders with northern states, San Luis Potosí and Zacatecas, and its ancestors were influenced by the Chichimeca indigenous groups (Otomi family [Boyd Bowman Reference Boyd-Bowman1960]). The variety of Mexico City (also known as chilango speech) differs considerably from that of Guanajuato at various levels of linguistic analysis. Mexico City is influenced by a different indigenous group, the Aztecs, speaking Nahuatl. While the influence of these indigenous groups can still be found in rural regions, the customers of the small shops examined here are representative of the city, and do not speak an indigenous language. (See Introduction, Figure 3, for the location of the Mexican regions).
4.3.1 Setting and data collection procedures
Unlike delicatessens situated within a supermarket (Section 4.2), small shops are independent stores that are mostly owned by family members. The vendors are predominantly family members, or they are independently hired by the owners of the store. The customers are regular clients and include both male and female adults and children. These stores cater to the needs of the neighborhood by offering a wide variety of deli products, but also other products such as groceries, candy, canned products, drinks, fruits and vegetables, wine, etc. Given the small size of these settings and the crowded display, some of these products can be reached directly by the customers. And, because of the convenience and small quantities of products sold, the sales transaction ends with the payment in cash. Figure 4.3 illustrates the characteristics of the small shop, including the position of the vendor and customer, the counter, display of the products, and placement of the audio tape recorder.
Figure 4.3 Mexican small shop setting
A total of 22 hours of sales transactions were recorded in both settings (see Introduction, Table 1 for details of the corpus). In these stores there was frequent background noise during sales transactions, such as customers or bystanders having casual conversations, music, children crying, etc. In this section I analyze 400 complete service encounters (200 for each region). Of these, female customers predominated in both Mexico City (women [68% or 136/200]; men [32% or 64/200]) and Guanajuato (women [80.5% or 161/200]; men [19.5% or 39/200]). Conversely, in both regions most customers interacted with a male vendor (Mexico City [men: 69% or 138/200; women: 31% or 62/200]; Guanajuato [men: 53% or 106/200; women: 47% or 94/200]).
Like the delicatessens in Indiana and Ohio (Section 4.2), the data from the small shops were analyzed according to two levels of pragmatic analysis: the actional level (request for service, internal modification) and interactional level (openings and closings, request–response sequence). Further, gender differences will be addressed with regard to the customers’ selection of the request variants. (English translations are provided below the Spanish text.)
4.3.2 Opening the interaction
In each region the interaction began with both verbal and non-verbal actions. Prior to the sales transaction, the customer entered the small shop and headed toward the vendor, who was situated behind the counter. The presence of the customer, alerting the vendor to an upcoming request, served as the summons (Schegloff Reference Schegloff1968), followed by the vendor's initial verbal exchange to establish alignment. And once identification of the social roles was established, the verbal transaction began. The verbal interaction began with the customer's request for service with no greeting exchange (Mexico City [86.5% or 173/200 interactions]; Guanajuato (61% or 122/200 interactions]), followed by a reciprocal greeting (Mexico City [9% or 18/200]; Guanajuato [10.5% or 21/200]). Less frequent beginnings included those in which the customer and the vendor opened the transaction with no greeting. Examples of greeting exchanges prefacing the request for service are given in (9) (Customer is marked [C] and vendor [V]. A formal style of address is indicated by the V form (V), and an informal style by the T form (T)).
[9] Opening the transaction
a. Guanajuato: greeting exchange (female customer; male vendor)
C: → Buenos días Good morning V: → buenos días good morning C: deme cinco pesos de jamón por favor ↓ (youV) give me five pesos of ham please ↓ b. Mexico City: customer-initiated greeting (female customer; male vendor)
C: → Buenas tardes, me puede dar medio kilo de queso añejo ↑ Good afternoon, can youV give me half a kilo of aged cheese ↑ V: si, amiga. V: yes, girlfriend.
Regional differences were noted with regard to the insertion of a pre-sequence prior to the request for service. Delaying the request for service was more frequent in the Mexico City (31.5% or 63/200) than in the Guanajuato data (18.5% or 37/200). Pre-sequences were often realized as requests for availability of the product or further information, as in example (10a) from Mexico City (line 03) and (10b) from Guanajuato (lines 01 and 03):
[10] Pre-sequence: delaying the request
a. Mexico City (female customer; male vendor)
01 C: Hola Hello 02 V: hola hello 03 C: → ¿cuánto cuesta el queso Oaxaca? how much is Oaxaca cheese? 04 V: diecisiete cincuenta el cuarto seventeen fifty a quarter (kilo) 05 C: me das un cuarto, por favor ↑ (youT) give me a quarter, please ↑ b. Guanajuato (female customer; male vendor)
01 C: → ¿Tiene queso asadero? Do youV have asadero cheese? 02 V: sí yes 03 C: → ¿de a cómo vende? how much do youV sell it for? 04 V: a dieciocho el cuarto eighteen a quarter (kilo) 05 C: me da un cuarto. (youV) give me a quarter (kilo).
In the exchanges above, the openings follow a strict adjacency-pair sequence and a fixed turn-taking format (A-B-A-B), including greetings and insertion sequences prefacing the request for service. Finally, it should be noted that opening a sales transaction with no reciprocal greeting – as in example 10b – was considered the expected sociocultural behavior in the Mexican data.
4.3.3 Pragmalinguistic variation in the request for service
Variation in the realization of the request for service was evident in both regions. The request was placed at the beginning of the interaction, predominantly in the first turn (Mexico City [54% or 108/200 interactions]; Guanajuato [51% or 102/200 interactions]). And given the higher frequency of pre-sequences in the Mexico City shops (63/200 interactions), requests in this region were also realized in later turns (fifth or later) (22.5% or 45/200 interactions), than in the Guanajuato region (7% or 14/200) where the request was also placed in the second and third turn (19% or 38/200 for each turn).
Figure 4.4 shows the realization of seven types of requests observed in both regions with different degrees of frequency (400 customer-initiated requests for service [200 per region]).
Figure 4.4 Distribution of requests for service in small shops in two Mexican regions
This figure illustrates that of the seven variants used, the expression of assertion predominated in both Mexico City (46% or 92/200) and Guanajuato (43% or 86/200), followed by an imperative form (Mexico City [17.5% or 35/200]; Guanajuato [16% or 32/200]). Regional differences were noted in the use of two strategies: an elliptical request was more frequently used in Guanajuato (29% or 58/200) than in Mexico City (8% or 16/200), whereas implicit requests predominated in Mexico City (23% or 46/200), but not in Guanajuato (5.5% or 11/200). A Chi-square test for independence showed that the difference in preference for these request variants is statistically significant for both elliptical, X2 (1, N = 400) = 27.88, p < .0001, and implicit variants, X2 (1, N = 400) = 23.66, p < .0001. These results indicate a high probability that the preference for these strategies is region-specific. Finally, as seen in Figure 4.4, three request variants were used infrequently (below 5%) in both regions: want statements (e.g. ‘I want/I'd like …’), direct questions interpreted as requests for service by the vendor, and conventional indirectness (e.g. ‘can I have …?’). Examples of these request variants are shown in (11), followed by the vendor's compliance with the request:
[11] Requests for service in Mexico City and Guanajuato
a. Elliptical request (Guanajuato: females)
Customer: → Un jamón del económico An inexpensive ham Vendor: este jamón ↑ this ham ↑ Customer: sí. yes. b. Imperative request (Guanajuato: female customer; male vendor)
Customer: → Deme un Premio ((soda)) (YouV) give me a Premio Vendor: ¿tamaño? litro o litro y medio ↑ size? a liter or liter and a half ↑ c. Assertion (Mexico City: males)
Customer: → Me da un kilo de huevo por favor ↑ – tendrá ↑ (YouV) give me a kilo of eggs please ↑ – would you have ↑ Vendor: sí. yes. d. Want statement (Guanajuato: females)
Vendor: ¿Qué va a llevar? What are youV gonna have? Customer: → quiero jamón por favor ↓ I want ham please ↓ e. Implicit request (Mexico City: females)
((customer enters shop and picks product)) Customer: A ver – cóbrate Let's see – (youT) take it out of that ((gives payment to vendor)) Vendor: ¿qué más? what else? Customer: es todo ↓ that's all ↓ f. Conventional indirectness (Mexico City: boy customer; male vendor)
Customer: → ¿Me puedes dar un aceite de a litro? Can youT give me a one liter bottle of oil? Vendor: no hay, no hay, no hay horita, espérate. there's none, there's none, there's none right now, (youT) wait. g. Direct question interpreted as request for service (Mexico City: females)
Customer: → ¿Tienes sopa de fideo? Do youT have noodle soup? Vendor: este – del número tres y del cuatro mmm – number three and four Customer: sí, del tres, del más delgado. yes, number three, the thinnest.
Internal modification is used to soften the unwelcome effects of a request. Mitigated requests occurred in 29.5% (59/200) of the transactions or fewer (Mexico City [26.5% or 53/200]; Guanajuato [29.5% or 59/200). The expression por favor (‘please’) and its colloquial variants (por fa, porfis ‘pretty please’) was the most frequent form of softening the request (Mexico City [19.5% or 39/200]; Guanajuato [24.5% or 49/200]). Other infrequent mitigators included diminutives (me da una cremita? ‘you give meV a little cream?’), the imperfect, the conditional, and tag expressions (¿no?) (see Chapter 1, Section 1.4.6, for a list of expressions used to mitigate requests).
The presence of internal modification in Mexican requests is infrequent. Unlike previous research on service encounters, which shows a preference for imperatives in Ecuadorian and Peninsular Spanish (Placencia Reference Placencia2005, Reference Placencia, Schneider and Barron2008), and conventional indirectness in French (Kerbrat-Orecchioni Reference Kerbrat-Orecchioni2006) and US English (Fink Reference Fink2013), the data from the Mexican regions examined showed a preference for assertions (e.g. me da ‘youV give me’) followed by imperatives, elliptical forms, and implicit requests.
Pragmatic variation with regard to the request for service was conditioned by the gender of the customer. Table 4.1 shows the distribution of the request variants according to the gender of the customer in Mexico City and Guanajuato (400 requests for service [200 per region]).
Table 4.1 Distribution of requests for service by gender in two Mexican regions
| Request variant | Mexico City | Guanajuato | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male customer | Female customer | Male customer | Female customer | |
| Imperative | 8 (12.5%) | 27 (19.9%) | 4 (10.3%) | 28 (17.4%) |
| Want statement | 0 (0%) | 4 (2.9%) | 1 (2.6%) | 8 (5%) |
| Assertion | 28 (43.8%) | 64 (47.1%) | 13 (33.3%) | 73 (45.3%) |
| Direct question | 1 (1.6%) | 3 (2.2%) | 2 (5.1%) | 1 (0.6) |
| Elliptical | 7 (10.9%) | 9 (6.6%) | 19 (48.7%) | 39 (24.2%) |
| Implicit | 18 (28.1%) | 28 (20.6%) | 0 (0%) | 11 (6.8%) |
| Conventional indirectness | 2 (3.1%) | 1 (0.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.6%) |
| Total | 64 (100%) | 136 (100%) | 39 (100%) | 161 (99.9%) |
According to the table, male and female customers showed similarities and differences in their preference for strategy use in each region. As mentioned above, female customers predominated in both Mexico City (females [68%]; males [32%]) and Guanajuato (females [80.5%]; males [19.5%]). In Mexico City, male and female customers showed a similar preference for three request variants: assertions (males [43.8%]; females [47.1%]), implicit requests (males [28.1%]; females [20.6%]), and imperative forms (males [12.5%]; females [19.9%]). In contrast, the preference for request type in Guanajuato was determined by the gender of the customer: male customers showed a strong preference for elliptical forms (48.7%), followed by assertions (33.3%) and imperative forms (10.3%), whereas female customers selected an assertion as the most frequent variant (45.3%), followed by elliptical (24.2%) and imperative forms (17.4%). A Chi-square test for independence showed that differences in the level of preference for use of elliptical (X2 [1, N = 400] = 7.28, p < .01) and assertion (X2 [1, N = 400] = 51.56, p < .0001) are statistically significant between males and females, therefore the probability of use (and non-use) of these variants is gender-specific in the Guanajuato region.
Looking at the male differences in both regions, male customers in Mexico City used an assertion as the most frequent variant (43.8% or 28/64), whereas in Guanajuato male customers showed a preference for elliptical forms (48.7% or 19/39). A close look at the selection of the imperative among female customers shows that this variant was influenced by the presence of the interlocutor/vendor. That is, the imperative form was more frequent in female–female interactions (Mexico City [63% or 17/27]; Guanajuato [57% or 16/28]) than in female–male interactions (Mexico City [37% or 10/27]; Guanajuato [43% or 12/28]). In the communities of practice examined, among female customers an imperative represents an appropriate request that is infrequently modified by internal modifiers such as por favor ‘please’ or a diminutive expression (Mexico City [9/27]; Guanajuato [7/28]). The results of this study suggest that the gender of both the customer and the vendor determine the selection of the request variant. This finding is consistent with previous studies in service encounters in other (Greek) sociocultural settings (Antonopoulou Reference Antonopoulou, Bayraktaroğlu and Sifianou2001), where the gender of both the buyer and the seller conditions the choice of the request variant (request for service) and regulates politeness practices during the negotiation of service. (See Lakoff [Reference Lakoff, Jaspers, Östman and Verschueren2010] and Mills [Reference Mills2003] for a discussion of the role of female speech in pragmatics research.)
4.3.4 Request–response sequence and closing
Instead of dividing this section into two separate analyses, namely, the request–response sequence and the closing sequence, I will present this information together so the reader can appreciate the sequential actions that emerge from the request–response sequence during the sales transaction. No major intra-lingual differences were noted in either Mexican region with regard to how the customer and the vendor negotiated and accomplished the interaction through joint actions. After the customer's initial request–response sequence, the interaction can end, or it can continue with additional requests until the customer signals that his/her requests for service have been fulfilled. The final joint actions, payment and terminal exchange, bring the interaction to an end. Relational talk (e.g. phatic exchanges and small talk) was also present during the negotiation of the transaction. The exchanges in (12–13) are representative of transactional talk, while the example in (14) shows an instance of transactional and relational talk.
Example (12) shows the negotiation of two requests for service and the closing of the interaction between the customer [C] and the vendor [V]:
[12] Negotiation of request (Mexico City: males)
01 C: Me das un encendedor ↑ (YouT) give me a lighter ↑ 02 V: sí yes 03 C: ¿cuánto es? how much is it? 04 V: cinco pesos five pesos 05 C: y esto ↑ and this ↑ 06: ((picks up product)) 07 V: ¿qué más? what else? 08 C: eso es todo that's all 09 V: once pesos eleven pesos 10 C: gracias thank you 11 ((pays vendor)) 12 V: sale. OK.
The interaction opens with the customer's request, an assertion with a high terminal (↑), followed by the vendor's compliance (lines 01–02) and a request for the item's price (lines 03–04). The prosodic downgrader (↑), marking final rising intonation, signals tentativeness and secures an uptake. A second request is implied and the customer selects a second product through deictic reference (lines 05–06). The vendor's solicitation for another request marks the end of the transaction (¿qué más? ‘what else?’), followed by the customer's pre-closing device (eso es todo ‘that's all’) (lines 07–08). The last joint action includes the payment sequence with verbal (‘thank-you’ expression) and non-verbal actions (handing payment to vendor) (lines 09–12). The payment sequence coincides with the terminal exchange. In this male–male interaction, the customer used the informal T form (tú ‘you’), and the interaction proceeded in the absence of internal modification, except for the prosodic downgrader as a high terminal (in Chapter 8 I discuss the pragmatic and discourse functions of address forms).
In the interaction in (13) from the Guanajuato region, we can observe a series of mitigated requests, clarification requests, and a formal style of address indicated by reciprocal V forms (usted ‘you-formal’), as well as nominal forms to express respect. This interaction shows the negotiation of the initial request for service, followed by a series of additional requests and the terminal exchange.
[13] Request–response and closing sequences (Guanajuato: females)
01 ((customer's presence)) 02 V: ¿Qué le damos? What can we get youV? 03 C: me da medio de queso asadero por favor ↓ (youV) give me half (a kilo) of asadero cheese please ↓ 04 V: sí yes 05 : ¿qué mas seño? what else ma'am? 06 ((delivers product)) 07 C: me da dos paquetes de bimbollos por favor ↓ (youV) give me two packages of buns please ↓ 08 y un paquetito de queso Amarillo and a packageD of yellow cheese 09 V: ¿cómo me dijoV? bimbollos ↑ what did youV tell me? Buns ↑ 10 C: sí, dos por favor – ¿cuántos trae? yes, two please – how many are in there? 11 V: seis en cada paquete six in each package 12 V: ¿qué más seño? what else ma'am? 13 ((delivers product)) 14 C: creo que nada más I think that's it 15 V: ochenta y seis eighty-six (pesos) 16 C: ((payment)) 17 C: gracias. thanks.
The interaction opens with the vendor's attendance allocation device in reaction to the customer's presence, in other words, a summons–response sequence (lines 01–02). There are three requests for service with an internal modifier like the form por favor (‘please’) (lines 03, 07) and a diminutive (line 08). The vendor's elicitation of additional products yields two more requests (lines 07 and 08). The negotiation of the request involves a clarification request–response sequence (lines 09–11). The next sequence (initiated by the vendor) ends the transaction (line 12, ¿qué más, seño? ‘what else, ma'am’?), followed by the customer's pre-closing response (creo que nada más ‘I think that's all’) (line 14). Immediately after the pre-closing device, the vendor initiates the payment sequence and the interaction closes with an expression of gratitude (lines 15–17). In this transaction both participants employed the V form (usted ‘youV’) to express respect, politeness forms (‘please’), a diminutive (line 08), while the vendor employed a deferential style in vocative use (¿qué más, seño? ‘what else, ma'am?’, lines 05 and 12).
Finally, unlike the two interactions in (12 and 13), which are accomplished using transactional talk, the example in (14) shows an interaction in which transactional and relational talk blend to frame the interaction as friendly:
[14] Transactional and relational talk (Mexico City: female customer; male vendor)
The interaction opens with a reciprocal greeting exchange (lines 01–02), followed by a pre-sequence (request for availability) with a high terminal (lines 03–04). The request is expressed through an assertion and a low terminal after the internal mitigator, por favor (‘please’). The prosodic downgrader, realized by a low terminal, shows the customer's expectation of the availability of the product and the vendor's non-verbal action (lines 05–06). While the vendor is preparing the product, the customer initiates small talk about the vendor's whereabouts (lines 08–12), including laughter (line 11). The vendor realigns with transactional talk by asking a clarification question regarding the amount of the product (lines 13–14), followed by the payment sequence (lines 15–17) and the terminal exchange (lines 18–19). The presence of relational talk was frequent in both regions, indicating frequency of interaction between the vendors and the clients of these communities of practice. Instances of relational talk occurred in discourse boundaries during the negotiation of the request–response sequence. Topics included everyday matters, food, friends in common within the neighborhood, political events, weather, school, and family (in Chapter 7 I address the pragmatic and discourse function of non-transactional talk in commercial and non-commercial encounters).
Unlike the interactions in both US regions, where adult customers predominated, in the small shops in Mexico City there were twenty encounters in which child customers interacted with an adult vendor (more frequent in the Mexico City shops [15/200] than in Guanajuato [5/200]). Examples of interactions between child customers with adult vendors are provided in (15 a–b):
[15] Child customers interacting with an adult male vendor
a. Girl customer and adult male vendor (Mexico City)
01 Girl: ¿Cuánto cuesta el medio? How much is half (a kilo)? 02 ((points at product)) 03 Vendor: ¿cuál, hija? which one, honey (lit. ‘daughter’)? 04 Girl: ((shows product)) 05 Vendor: siete, ocho y ese 6.50 seven, eight, and that one 6.50 (pesos) 06 Girl: tengo una moneda I have one coin 07 ((shows coin to vendor)) 08 Vendor: te alcanza para una cosa – nada más youT have enough for one thing – nothing else 09 Girl: ((girl accepts)) 10 Vendor: a ver hija, here honey, 11 ((vendor receives payment)) 12 ándale, hija. here youT go, honey. b. Boy customer and adult male vendor (Mexico City)
01 Boy: Me das un litro de leche ↑ (YouT) give me a liter of milk ↑ 02 Vendor: sí yes 03 cuatro pesos four pesos 04 Boy: una Nutrileche a Nutrileche 05 Vendor: toma here (youT go) 06 ((delivers product)) 07 Boy: gracias thanks 08 Vendor: andale ↓ youT bet ↓
Encounters between a child customer and an adult vendor were brief transactions with an absence of phatic exchanges or relational talk. In (15a) the girl opens the interaction by asking for information about the product using verbal and non-verbal actions (deictic expressions) (lines 01–05). The implicit request is realized through deictic gesture (referring to the coin), followed by the vendor's response (lines 06–09). The interaction ends with the payment sequence and the vendor's farewell (lines 10–12). It is worth mentioning that the vendor uses a vocative to address the girl, hija (‘daughter’), which shows affiliation. In (15b), the boy opens the encounter with an assertion (with high terminal), followed by the vendor's compliance (lines 01–02). The payment sequence is initiated in line 03, followed by a clarification of the product and the delivery of the product (lines 03–06). The terminal exchange includes an expression of gratitude and a gratitude exchange common in Mexican Spanish, ándale ‘OK/you bet’) (lines 07–08). In this interaction both interlocutors use the informal T form, as noted in lines 01, 05, and 08.
While greeting exchanges were infrequent in service encounters in the Mexican regions examined, terminal exchanges represented a sociocultural expectation, occurring in the majority of the interactions. The analysis presented above shows that the negotiation of the request–response sequence (in Mexican small shops) progresses through a series of strict adjacency-pair sequences, prosodic resources (high terminals), mitigators (‘please,’ diminutives), brief clarification requests, payment and closing sequences, and presence of relational talk embedded in transactional talk (e.g. small talk episodes). The frequency of relational talk in the Mexican data is the product of clients interacting with vendors (owners of small shops) on a daily basis (see Introduction, Figure 1, and Chapter 7 for an analysis of non-transactional talk). Finally, the selection of address terms (e.g. T and V forms, address terms as vocatives) represents an important component of the negotiation of service encounters. Given the complexity inherent in the use of address terms in Spanish, Chapter 8 provides an in-depth analysis of pragmatic and discursive functions of vocatives and pronominal forms.
4.4 Conclusion
This chapter examined intra-lingual pragmatic variation in service encounters from two regions of the US Midwest and from two regions in Mexico (i.e. variation at the subnational level). Pragmatic variation was examined through the analysis of coordinated joint actions that occurred across the interaction and at various levels of pragmatics, namely, the actional level (variation in the request for service) and interactional level (openings and closings, and request–response sequence). The analysis showed that the preference for request variants (request for service) is influenced by the gender of both the customer and the vendor. More important, unlike most research on pragmatics from a variationist sociolinguistic perspective (e.g. Cameron and Schwenter Reference Cameron, Schwenter, Bayley, Cameron and Lucas2013 [morphosyntactic variation]; Tagliamonte Reference Tagliamonte2012 [quotative ‘be like’]), this chapter showed that regional variation exists in the ways of speaking between buyers and sellers during the negotiation of service. Although research on pragmagtic variation at the subnational level is not new (e.g. Barron and Schneider Reference Barron and Schneider2009; Lindenfeld Reference Lindenfeld1978, Reference Lindenfeld1990; Schneider and Barron Reference Placencia, Schneider and Barron2008), in this chapter I looked at variation in the context of two subgenres of service encounters, namely, delicatessens and small shops. Finally, since relational talk (e.g. phatic exchanges and small talk) was embedded in transactional talk, a small-scale discourse analysis was conducted to examine the sequential structure of small talk across the entire interaction, taking into account the alignment of the participants’ roles. The last section examined service encounters between child customers and adult vendors in small shops.
The next chapter examines service encounters at an open-air market with speakers from the same community of practice. These encounters are characterized by informality and a setting that differs from those analyzed in the previous chapters.
