BRITISHNESS AND ENGLISHNESS

DO YOU THINK THESE TWO CONCEPTS OVERLAP (ARE MORE COMMON THAN NOT)?

21 The answer is that I am researching and writing about Englishness rather than Britishness: partly out of sheer laziness; partly because England is a nation, and might reasonably be expected to have some sort of coherent and distinctive national culture or character, whereas Britain is a purely political construct, composed of several nations with their own distinctive cultures; partly because although there may be a great deal of overlap between these cultures, they are clearly not identical and should not be treated as such by being lumped together under ‘Britishness’; and finally because ‘Britishness’ seems to me to be a rather meaningless term: when people use it, they nearly always really mean ‘Englishness’ – they do not mean that someone is being frightfully Welsh or Scottish. I only have the time and energy to try to understand one of these cultures, and I have chosen my own, the English.

I realise that one can, if one is being picky, pick all sorts of holes in these arguments – not least that a ‘nation’ is surely itself a pretty artificial construct – and Cornish ‘nationalists’ and even fervent regionalists from other parts of England (Yorkshire and Norfolk spring to mind) will no doubt insist that they too have their own separate identity and should not be bundled together with the rest of the English.

The trouble is that virtually all nations have a number of regions, each of which invariably regards itself as different from, and superior to, all the others. This applies in France, Italy, the US, Russia, Mexico, Spain, Scotland, Australia – and more or less anywhere else you care to mention. People from St Petersburg talk about Muscovites as though they were members of a different species; COMMENT East-coast and Mid-western Americans might as well be from different planets, ditto Tuscans and Neapolitans, Northern and Southern Mexicans, etc.; even cities such as Melbourne and Sydney see themselves as having radically different characters – and let’s not start on Edinburgh and Glasgow. Regionalism is hardly a peculiarly English phenomenon. In all of these cases, however, the people of these admittedly highly individual regions and towns nevertheless have enough in common to make

them recognizably Italian, American, Russian, Scottish, etc. I am interested in those commonalities.

DO YOU ASSESS STEREOTYPES AS POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE PHENOMENA?

STEREOTYPES AND CULTURAL GENOMICS

22 …an assumption that a stereotype is almost by definition ‘not true’, that the truth lies somewhere else I would naturally assume that … stereotypes about English national character probably contain at least a grain or two of truth. They do not,

after all, just come out of thin air, but must have germinated and grown from something. I found that stereotypes such as English ‘reserve’, ‘politeness’, ‘weather-talk’, ‘hooliganism’, ‘hypocrisy’, ‘privacy’, ‘anti-intellectualism’, ‘queuing’, ‘compromise’, ‘fair play’, ‘humour’, ‘class-consciousness’, ‘eccentricity’ and so on were not quite what they seemed – and they all had complex layers of rules and codes that were not visible to the naked eye. I suppose another way of describing my Englishness project would be as an attempt to sequence (or map, I’m never sure which is which) the English cultural genome – to identify the cultural ‘codes’ that make us who we are.

UNIT 3. GETTING ALONG WITH PEOPLE. CONVERSATION CODES     (SPEECH ETIQUETTE)

 Each of us from different cultural backgrounds has a unique way of doing things, analyzing situations, and reacting to circumstances. Our individual way of viewing the situation could be called perception.

To communicate comfortably in another country you need to understand its thinking and expectations.

In the USA it is considered to be normal to approach the individual that you want to make friends with, smile and say, “Hello, my name is ….” Then you might shake hands with them by firmly taking his or her right hand in yours.

In Britain this mode of behaviour is thought to be “the brash American approach” and is scrutinized in the context of “The No-name Rule” (Kate Fox’s “Watching the English”).

READ THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES FROM “Watching the English” AND GET READY TO SHARE YOUR OPINION OF CULTURAL AND LANGUAGE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NATIONS WITH YOUR TEACHER AND GROUPMATES. NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOR (HAND GESTURES, FACIAL EXPRESSIONS, TOUCHING, DISTANCE AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS, ETC.) IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT AND WILL BE DISCUSSED LATER.

Weather Talk

IS WEATHER TALK CONSIDERED PART OF SPEECH ETIQUETTE IN RUSSIA AS IT IS IN THE UK/USA AND OTHER ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES? DOES IT FOLLOW ANY ACKNOWLEDGED RULES?

Any discussion of English conversation, like any English conversation, must begin with The Weather. And in

this spirit of observing traditional protocol, I shall, like every other writer on Englishness, quote Dr Johnson’s

famous comment that ‘When two Englishmen meet, their first talk is of the weather’, and point out that this

observation is as accurate now as it was over two hundred years ago. My research has convinced me…that our

conversations about the weather are not really about the weather at all: English weather-speak is a form of

code, evolved to help us overcome our natural reserve and actually talk to each other. Everyone knows, for

example, that ‘Nice day, isn’t it?’, ‘Ooh, isn’t it cold?’, ‘Still raining, eh?’ and other variations on the theme are not

requests for meteorological data: they are ritual greetings, conversation-starters or default ‘fillers’. In other

words, English weather-speak is a form of ‘grooming talk’ – the human equivalent of what is known as ‘social

grooming’among our primate cousins, where they spend hours grooming each other’s fur, even when they are

perfectly clean, as a means of social bonding.

THE RULES OF ENGLISH WEATHER-SPEAK

The Reciprocity Rule

In fact, ‘Ooh, isn’t it cold?’ – like ‘Nice day, isn’t it?’ and all the others – is English code

for ‘I’d like to talk to you – will you talk to me?’, or, if you like, simply another way of saying ‘hello’. the ‘How do you do?’ greeting (to

which the apparently ludicrous correct response is to repeat the question back ‘How do you do?’) is now

regarded by many as somewhat archaic, and is no longer the universal standard greeting. The ‘Nice day, isn’t it?’

exchange must, however, be understood in the same light, and not taken literally: ‘How do you do?’ is not a real

question about health or well-being, and ‘Nice day, isn’t it?’ is not a real question about the weather.

Comments about the weather are phrased as questions (or with an interrogative intonation) because they

require a response – but the reciprocity is the point, not the content. Any interrogative remark on the weather

will do to initiate the process, and any mumbled confirmation (or even near-repetition, as in ‘Yes, isn’t it?’) will do

as a response.

27 The Context Rule

A principal rule concerns the contexts in which weather-speak can be used. Other writers have claimed that the

English talk about the weather all the time, that it is a national obsession or fixation, but this is sloppy

observation: in fact, there are three quite specific contexts in which weather-speak is prescribed. Weatherspeak

can be used:

as a simple greeting

as an ice-breaker leading to conversation on other matters

as a ‘default’, ‘filler’ or ‘displacement’ subject, when conversation on other matters falters, and there is an

awkward or uncomfortable lull.

The Agreement Rule

The English have clearly chosen a highly appropriate aspect of our own familiar natural world as a social

facilitator: the capricious and erratic nature of our weather ensures that there is always something new to

comment on, be surprised by, speculate about, moan about, or, perhaps most importantly, agree about. Which

brings us to another important rule of English weather-speak: always agree. This rule was noted by the

Hungarian humorist George Mikes, who wrote that in England ‘You must never contradict anybody when

discussing the weather’. We have already established that weather-speak greetings or openers such as ‘Cold,

isn’t it?’ must be reciprocated, but etiquette also requires that the response express agreement, as in ‘Yes, isn’t

it?’ or ‘Mmm, very cold’.

Failure to agree in this manner is a serious breach of etiquette.

If you deliberately break the rule (as I duly did, on several occasions, in the interests of science), you will find

that the atmosphere becomes rather tense and awkward, and possibly somewhat huffy. No one will actually

complain or make a big scene about it (we have rules about complaining and making a fuss), but they will be

offended, and this will show in subtle ways. There may be an uncomfortable silence, then someone may say, in

piqued tones, ‘Well, it feels cold to me,’ or ‘Really? Do you think so?’ – or, most likely, they will either change the

subject or continue talking about the weather among themselves, politely, if frostily, ignoring your faux pas. In

very polite circles, they may attempt to ‘cover’ your mistake by helping you to re-define it as a matter of taste

or personal idiosyncrasy, rather than of fact. Among highly courteous people, the response to your ‘No, actually,

it’s quite mild’ might be, after a slightly embarrassed pause, ‘Oh, perhaps you don’t feel the cold – you know, my

husband is like that: he always thinks it’s mild when I’m shivering and complaining. Maybe women feel the cold

more than men, do you think?’

The Weather-as-family Rule

While we may spend much of our time moaning about our weather, foreigners are not allowed to criticize it. In

this respect, we treat the English weather like a member of our family: one can complain about the behaviour of

one’s own children or parents, but any hint of censure from an outsider is unacceptable, and very bad manners.

WEATHER-SPEAK RULES AND ENGLISHNESS

The rules of English weather-speak tell us quite a lot about Englishness. Already, before we even begin to

examine the minutiae of other English conversation codes and rules of behaviour in other aspects of English life,

these rules provide a number of hints and clues about the ‘grammar’ of Englishness.

In the reciprocity and context rules, we see clear signs of reserve and social inhibition, but also the ingenious

use of ‘facilitators’ to overcome these handicaps. The agreement rule and its exceptions provide hints about the

importance of politeness and avoidance of conflict (as well as the approval of conflict in specific social contexts)

and the precedence of etiquette over logic.

WHAT OTHER “KINDS/FORMS OF TALK” WOULD YOU ATTRIBUTE TO ENGLISH (RUSSIAN) SPEECH ETIQUETTE?

GROOMING-TALK

THE RULES OF INTRODUCTION

Grooming-talk starts with greeting-talk. Weather-speak is needed in this context partly because greetings and

introductions are such an awkward business for the English. The problem has become particularly acute since the

decline of ‘How do you do?’ as the standard, all-purpose greeting. The ‘How do you do?’ greeting – where the

correct response is not to answer the question, but to repeat it back, ‘How do you do?’, like an echo or a welltrained

parrot13 – is still in use in upper-class and upper-middle circles, but the rest are left floundering, never

knowing quite what to say. Instead of sneering at the old-fashioned stuffiness of the ‘How do you do?’ ritual, we

would do better to mount a campaign for its revival: it would solve so many problems.

Awkwardness Rules

As it is, our introductions and greetings tend to be uncomfortable, clumsy and inelegant. Among established

friends, there is less awkwardness, although we are often still not quite sure what to do with our hands, or

whether to hug or kiss. The French custom of a kiss on each cheek has become popular among the chattering

classes and some other middle- and upper-middle-class groups, but is regarded as silly and pretentious by many

other sections of society, particularly when it takes the form of the ‘air-kiss’. Women who use this variant (and it

is only women; men do not air-kiss, unless they are very camp gays, and even then it is done ‘ironically’) are

disparagingly referred to as ‘Mwah-Mwahs’. Even in the social circles where cheek-kissing is acceptable, one can

still never be entirely sure whether one kiss or two is required, resulting in much awkward hesitation and bumping

as the parties try to second-guess each other.

Handshakes are now the norm in business introductions – or rather, they are the norm when people in

business are introduced to each other for the first time.

At subsequent meetings, particularly as business contacts get to know each other better, a handshake

greeting often starts to seem too formal, but cheek-kisses would be too informal (or too pretentious, depending

on the social circle), and in any case not allowed between males, so we revert to the usual embarrassed

confusion, with no-one being quite sure what to do. Hands are half-extended and then withdrawn or turned into

a sort of vague wave; there may be awkward, hesitant moves towards a cheek-kiss or some other form of

physical contact such as an arm-touch – as no contact at all feels a bit unfriendly – but these are also often

aborted half-way. This is excruciatingly English: over-formality is embarrassing, but so is an inappropriate degree

of informality

The No-name Rule

In purely social situations, the difficulties are even more acute. There is no universal prescription of handshakes

on initial introduction – indeed, they may be regarded as too ‘businesslike’ – and the normal business practice of

giving one’s name at this point is also regarded as inappropriate. You do not go up to someone at a party (or in

any other social setting where conversation with strangers is permitted, such as a pub bar counter) and say

‘Hello, I’m John Smith,’ or even ‘Hello, I’m John.’ In fact, the only correct way to introduce yourself in such

settings is not to introduce yourself at all, but to find some other way of initiating a conversation – such as a

remark about the weather.

The ‘brash American’ approach: ‘Hi, I’m Bill from Iowa,’ particularly if accompanied by an outstretched hand

and beaming smile, makes the English wince and cringe. The American tourists and visitors I spoke to during my

research had been both baffled and hurt by this reaction. ‘I just don’t get it,’ said one woman. ‘You say your

name and they sort of wrinkle their noses, like you’ve told them something a bit too personal and embarrassing.’

‘That’s right,’ her husband added. ‘And then they give you this tight little smile and say “Hello” – kind of pointedly

not giving their name, to let you know you’ve made this big social booboo. What the hell is so private about a

person’s name, for God’s sake? I ended up explaining, as kindly as I could, that the English do not want to know your name, or tell you theirs,

until a much greater degree of intimacy has been established – like maybe when you marry their daughter. Rather

than giving your name, I suggested, you should strike up a conversation by making a vaguely interrogative

comment about the weather (or the party or pub or wherever you happen to be). This must not be done too

loudly, and the tone should be light and informal, not earnest or intense. The object is to ‘drift’ casually into

conversation, as though by accident. Even if the other person seems happy enough to chat, it is still customary

to curb any urges to introduce yourself.

40 The ‘Pleased to Meet You’ Problem

In a small social gathering such as a dinner party, the host may solve the name problem by introducing guests to

each other by name, but these are still awkward moments, as the decline of ‘How do you do?’ means that no-one

is quite sure what to say to each other when introduced in this manner. ‘How are you?’, despite having much the

same meaning, and being equally recognised as a non-question (the correct response is ‘Very well, thank you’ or

‘Fine, thanks’ whatever your state of health or mind), will not do in initial introductions, as custom dictates that

it may only be used as a greeting between people who already know each other. Even though it does not require

an honest answer, ‘How are you?’ is far too personal and intimate a question for first-time introductions.

The most common solution, nowadays, is ‘Pleased to meet you’ (or ‘Nice to meet you’ or something similar).

But in some social circles – mainly upper-middle class and above, although some at the higher end of middlemiddle

are affected – the problem with this common response is that it is just that: ‘common’, meaning a lowerclass

thing to say. The people who hold this view may not put it quite like this – they are more likely to say that

‘Pleased to meet you’ is ‘incorrect’, and you will indeed still find etiquette books that confirm this. The explanation

offered by some etiquette books is that one should not say ‘Pleased to meet you’ as it is an obvious lie: one

cannot possibly be sure at that point whether one is pleased to meet the person or not. Given the usual

irrationalities, dishonesties and hypocrisies of English etiquette, this seems unnecessarily and quite

uncharacteristically scrupulous.

Whatever its origins or dubious logic, the prejudice against ‘Pleased to meet you’ is still quite widespread,

often among people who do not know why it is that they feel uneasy about using the phrase. They just have a

vague sense that there is something not quite right about it. But even among those with no class prejudice

about ‘Pleased to meet you’, who believe it is the correct and polite thing to say, this greeting is rarely delivered

with ringing confidence: it is usually mumbled rather awkwardly, and as quickly as possible – ‘Plstmtye’. This

awkwardness may, perversely, occur precisely because people believe they are saying the ‘correct’ thing.

Formality is embarrassing. But then, informality is embarrassing. Everything is embarrassing.

The Embarrassment Rule

In fact, the only rule one can identify with any certainty in all this confusion over introductions and greetings is

that, to be impeccably English, one must perform these rituals badly. One must appear self-conscious, ill-atease,

stiff, awkward and, above all, embarrassed. Smoothness, glibness and confidence are inappropriate and un-

English. Hesitation, dithering and ineptness are, surprising as it may seem, correct behaviour. Introductions

should be performed as hurriedly as possible, but also with maximum inefficiency. If disclosed at all, names must

be mumbled; hands should be tentatively half-proffered and then clumsily withdrawn; the approved greeting is

something like ‘Er, how, um, plstm-, er, hello?’

If you are socially skilled, or come from a country where these matters are handled in a more reasonable,

straightforward manner (such as anywhere else on the planet), you may need a bit of practice to achieve the

required degree of embarrassed, stilted incompetence.

HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT OF THE RUSSIAN CONVERSATION CODES? DO YOU THINK THE ABOVEMENTIONED RULES ARE TYPICALLY BRITISH OR COULD ANY OF THEM BE APPLIED AND ACCEPTED FOR COMMUNICATION NEEDS IN RUSSIA?

HERE ARE SOME SAMPLE DIALOGUES TO ASSESS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE DEGREE OF FORMALITY AND THEIR BRITISH/AMERICAN FLAVOUR. ACT THEM OUT IN PAIRS PAYING SPECIAL ATTENTION TO PHONETIC MEANS. DISCUSS THEM WITH YOUR TEACHER.

1.ROBERT: Mr. Caldwell, I’d like you to meet my mother.

MR. CALDWELL: Mrs. Rienzo, I’m pleased to meet you.

MRS. RIENZO: Robert enjoys your class very much.

MR. CALDWELL: Thank you. I enjoy having him in class.

MRS. RIENZO: It was very nice meeting you.

MR. CALDWELL: Same here. Good –bye.

2.TIM: John, I’d like you to meet my friend, Joan Sullivan. Joan, this is John Tracey.

JOAN (shaking hands with John): It’s nice to meet you.

NOTICE THAT THE PERSON DOING THE INTRODUCTION PROVIDES A LITTLE INFO ABOUT THE PERSON THAT IS BEING INTRODUCED. THIS MIGHT SERVE AS A CONVERSATION STARTER FOR THE PEOPLE INTRODUCED.

3.TOM: Mr. O’Malley, I’d like you to meet my friend, Maria Carlos. She is an exchange student from Spain and is majoring in computer science.

MR. O’MALLEY: I’m glad to meet you. I hope you’ve been able to get the courses you want. Computer technologies are so popular.

MARIA: Yes, thank you, I have. Fortunately there are many courses to choose from. Well, I have to go to class now. I certainly enjoyed meeting you.

MR. O’MALLEY: I hope we’ll meet again. Good-bye.

MARIA: Good-bye.

4.JAMES: (at a party where he doesn’t know anyone) Hallo (Hi), my name is James Jones.

ANNA: Hi, I’m Anna Wells. It’s nice to meet you.

JAMES: Do you know any people here? I don’t know a single person!

ANNA: Really? Let me introduce you to some of my friends. I’d like you to meet Mary Kempe. She goes to East High school and is a real sports enthusiast.

JAMES: Nice to meet you. What sports are you interested in?

MARY: Running and jogging…

СONCLUDE THE CONVERSATION

ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW AMERICANS OR BRITONS GREET EACH OTHER AND COMPARE THEIR CUSTOMS WITH THE WAYS IN THIS COUNTRY.

- Who makes the introduction? (either the person who wishes to meet another or a friend who knows the other person)

- Who should be introduced to whom? (A woman to a man; a younger person to an older one; a subordinate to a superior)

- What should you say?

- May a person introduce himself to a woman? May a woman introduce herself to a man?

- What body language should a person use?

- What tone of voice should one use?

- Should you shake hands?

- Do people embrace or kiss people of the same sex upon meeting? Does one kiss or hug children when introduced?

MAKE UP A WHAT YOU THINK MODEL DIALOGUE ILLUSTRATING THE RULES OF INTRODUCTION AND ENGLISH WEATHER SPEAK AND ACT IT OUT WITH YOUR GROUPMATE(S)

SOME INFO ABOUT HAND GESTURES, body language, etc.

Non-Verbal contact involves everything from something as obvious as eye contact and facial expressions to more discrete forms of expression such as the use of space. Experts have labelled the term Kinesics to mean communicating through body movement. Huseman, author of Business Communication, explains that the two most prominent ways of communication through Kinesics is eye contact and facial expressions. Eye contact, Huseman goes on to explain, is the key factor in setting the tone between two individuals and greatly differs in meaning between cultures. In the Americas and Western Europe eye contact is interpreted the same way, conveying interest and honesty. People who avoid eye contact when speaking are viewed in a negative light, withholding information and lacking in general confidence. However, in the Middle East, Africa, and especially Asia eye contact is seen as disrespectful and even challenging of one’s authority. People who make eye contact, but only briefly, are seen as respectful and courteous. Facial expressions are their own language by comparison, and universal throughout all cultures. Dale Leathers, for example, states that facial expression can communicate ten basic classes of meaning. The final part to Non-Verbal communication lies in our gestures, and can be broken down into five subcategories; Emblems, Illustrators, Regulators, Affect Displays, and Adaptors. Emblems and Illustrators are the easiest to communicate since Emblems refer to sign language (such as the “Thumbs Up” which is one of the most recognized symbols in the world) and Illustrators mimic what we speak (such as gesturing how much time is left by holding up a certain amount of fingers). Regulators act as a way of conveying meaning through gestures (raising up one’s hand for instance indicates that one has a certain question about what was just said) and become more complicated since the same regulator can have different meanings across different cultures (making a circle with ones hand for instance in the Americas means O.K but in Japan the gesture is symbolic for money, and in France conveys the notion of worthlessness). The last two, Affect Displays and Adaptors, are the two the individual has very little to no control over. Affect Displays reveal emotions such as happiness (through a smile) or sadness (mouth trembling, tears) where Adaptors are more subtle such as a yawn or clenching fists in anger. The last Non-Verbal type of communication deals with communication through the space around us, or Proxemics. Huseman goes on to explain that Hall identifies three types of space; Feature-Fixed Space, Semifixed Feature Space and Informal Space. Feature-Fixed space deals with how cultures arrange their space on a large scale, such as buildings and parks. Semifixed Feature Space deals with how we arrange our space inside said buildings, such as the placement of our desks, chairs and plants. Informal space is the space that we place importance on. Talking distance, how close people sit to one another and office space are all examples.