Online Book Reader

Home Category

Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill.original_ [86]

By Root 10176 0
the idea that “everything about the way we say something contributes to establishing the footing that frames our relationships to each other “(75). The guests on talk shows are entering a frame, or conversational alignment, that is inherently asymmetrical. Though both guest and host are technically celebrities, the guest is presented as the centerpiece of the program, the man who answers the questions, while the host is simply the asker. This frame is not always one that is appealing for the guest, who may want to create a persona that is not that of an elite star, but of a likable and approachable everyman. In order to cultivate this persona, the guest can use conversation to downplay his star status and success in order to establish a more symmetrical alignment to the host, thereby changing the frame of the conversation. As we will see, however, this reframing is complicated, since it essentially shifts the asymmetry to a different ground. An example of this technique can be found in actor Paul Rudd’s interview with NBC late night talk show host Conan O’Brien:

Rudd: I’m great, how are you?

O’Brien: I’m very good. You know things are going very well for you. You’ve been in so many successful movies. You have this new film Role Models. People love this movie, very funny, big hit for you, you’ve gotta be excited. I mean you you’re a big, big star. Rudd: It…I don’t know about that, but it’s very exciting. Oh God, I’m still out of breath! I swear to God.

By negating O’Brien’s compliment, Rudd downplays his fame and thus reframes the conversation. By saying, “Oh God, I’m still out of breath,” Rudd draws attention away from his stardom to some goofy dancing that O’Brien and Rudd did at the beginning of the interview. When O’Brien again tries to draw attention to Rudd’s star power, Rudd again dodges the compliment.

O’Brien: But I would have to think by now that it’s reaching critical mass, so many successful movies you must be getting the star treatment now. I bet you’re treated like—

Rudd: I met Bruce Springsteen. I met him but it wasn’t a … I snuck backstage at a Police concert and he was there.

Rudd’s move, which allows him to segue into a selfdeprecating anecdote about his encounter with Bruce Springsteen, represents an effort to resist the frame that O’Brien attempts to establish. Instead of accepting the frame that situates Rudd as a star and O’Brien as an average fan, Rudd strategically reframes the conversation by invoking a third party, a star whom both O’Brien and Rudd admire. Now, the conversation is not taking place between a “big star” and his fan, but rather between two fans.

[The writer sets up and queries binaries:] To help understand Rudd’s move, we can use Tannen’s conversational categories of “report-talk” and “rapport-talk,” the former being a way of “exhibiting knowledge and skill” and the latter being a way of “establishing connections” by “displaying similarities and matching experiences” (Understand 77). While men are generally associated with report talk rather than rapport talk, the two categories are not necessarily gender exclusive. Humility, which often takes the form of self-deprecation, can help to remove asymmetry from a conversation. Such a move allows the men to capitalize on their similarities rather than emphasize their differences. We see Rudd do just that by transforming his conversational role from that of the star to that of the fan, a fan that must sneak backstage to meet his musical idols, just like the proverbial rest of us.

[The writer uses her lens to reformulate binaries and uncover assumptions:] If the goal of a conversation is to achieve a sense of equality between speakers, one speaker reinforcing the other’s self-deprecation may appear to be detrimental to a relationship. Surely, if one makes a comment that he or she is not funny enough, not smart enough, or not brave enough, it is only polite for the other speaker to contradict this statement. However, when the conversation is between men, such a negation would likely be interpreted as sympathy, and may

Return Main Page Previous Page Next Page

®Online Book Reader