operation, which possibly happened to a friend, but the friend has a scar
this
big. And so it goes on, until the most horrible story has been told, and
the biggest scar has been displayed, and the topic shifts to something new
(cf. Morgan & Rinvolucri, 1986: 89–90, ‘Scars’).
The function of second-storying is largely cultural. Again, the point is
not primarily that information is being exchanged. The point is rather that
the participants are re-affirming their group identity by sharing experi-
ences through a sequence of narratives, anecdotes, exemplums or recounts.
The conversation is a way of identifying that they have shared common
experiences and also share common attitudes and beliefs (e.g. ‘hospitals are
scary’, ‘nurses are overworked’, ‘doctors are too young’). There is also a
competitive element in second-storying. The latest story should always be
more exciting or more vivid than the preceding stories – by capping earlier
stories, the ‘second storyteller’ therefore acquires a high status in the
group. Some people always have to have the last word, the best story, the
most attention. Other people might resist playing, and sit quietly on the
edge of the group, ready to fade out. But most participants are happy to
initiate or continue the sequence of second-stories, sometimes having the
best story and sometimes being just part of the cycle.
Gossip
Gossip, too, has its own structure and conventions. Eggins and Slade
(1997) give a narrow definition of gossip, arguing that its cultural function
is to reinforce group norms by describing and discussing behaviour that
falls outside the accepted norms of the community. Someone who initiates
gossip usually begins by telling a story about an absent member of the
community, often a friend or an acquaintance – although often a known
celebrity or public figure serves the purpose. The story will often relate or
refer to some aspect of the absentee’s behaviour that the speaker finds
unacceptable. This evaluation, and the account of the behaviour, may be
confirmed or challenged by the other participants in the conversation.
Usually some kind of compromise is found – perhaps the group agrees that
a particular aspect of the behaviour is unacceptable, but the third party was
under stress at the time, or egged on by a fourth party, or was brought up
badly. The purpose of gossip, then, is to negotiate within a group what is
and is not acceptable behaviour – the point of the conversation is to explore
and confirm group solidarity through the discussion of shared ethical or
moral sensibilities. By choosing an absent subject for gossip, conversational
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: