An Evaluation of Greeting Exchanges
in Textbooks and Real Life Settings

Kenneth E. Williams
Introduction
This report is an attempt to evaluate greeting exchanges asspeech acts in both ESL materials and real life interactions, thenarrive at tentative conclusions concerning the authenticity of greetings presented in ESL materials.

Three Perspectives of Greetings
The review on greeting exchanges covers three broad disciplines: linguistics, sociology, and anthropology. These three disciplines view greetings across a spectrum of proximity from micro to
macro. Linguists represent the micro view, focusing on linguistic
behavior. Sociologists take a step back by looking more at social
interaction. Lastly, anthropologists have taken a larger view, interpreting the linguistic behavior of greetings coupled with interaction
as representing culture.

The Linguistic Perspective
Conversational analysis also known as discourse analysis,
describes speech phenomena in two basic manners, in terms ofspeech units, such as adjacency pairs, utterances, and turns, and ofpragmatic meaning. Schegloff (1972), Schegloff and Sacks (1973)
introduced adjacency pairs as part of conversational analysis. They
defined adjacency pairs as:

ῌ 49 ῌ( ῌ ) two utterance length.
( ῍ ) adjacent positioning of component utterances.
( ῎ ) different speakers producing each utterance.
( ῏ ) relative ordering of parts.
(1973: 295- 296).

The notion of sequencing and serial moves is central toadjacency pairs and is used to explain the dynamic characteristics
of verbal interaction. Schegloff and Sacks see greetings as a speech
event composed of two parts side by side, serial, and sequential,
such as Greeting-Greeting:

A: Hello.
B: Hi.
or
A: Good morning.
B: Hello.

There may also be optional second pair parts where the second
function is replaced by another function: Greeting- Request for Information

A: Hello.
B: Did you just get home?

Richards and Schmidt define Greeting- Greeting adjacency
pairs as ῍closed sets, formulaic, and easily learned." (1983: 131).
They also acknowledge greeting- other function combinations as

ῌ 50 ῌ

another possibility, and also point out that these other forms are notnormally found in second language instruction.
Using adjacency pairs to describe greetings has limitations.
Some difficulties include:(1) The definition of adjacency pairs does not adequately
fit real life examples, Piazza (1987), Price (1988).

(2) Use of adjacency pairs fails to make predictions about
interaction. First pair parts may not indicate the presence of
second pair parts.

(3) Adjacency pairs have a static dimension. They can only
describe the observable behavior and fail to fully address thepragmatic interactional aspects of greeting exchanges.

Given the above questions, the use of adjacency pairs as a
linguistic form of greetings presents some difficulties. Conversational analysis, in order to be more representative of real life communication, needs to establish a strong relationship between form
and pragmatic context.

The Sociolinguistic Perspective
Goffman (1971) prefers to characterize greeting exchanges as
῍access rituals῎ consisting of two types, passing greetings andengaging greetings (1971: 79). Ritual is defined as a ῍conventionalized act through which an individual portrays his respect andregard for some object of ultimate value" (1971: 62). Passing greetings and engaging greetings function are similar to a switch thatῌ 51 ῌ

opens or closes relations. Greetings also have other observable
physical behavior. ῍A selection from a set of behavioral displays is
involved." In addition, ῍a verbal salutation is likely provided alongwith a term of address" (1971: 74). In short, greetings are composedof several interlinking behaviors:(1) ῍salutation" or the verbal linguistic form.
(2) term of address.
(3) body language.
(4) social context.

Goffman makes three generalizations in interpreting greeting
behavior. First, exchanges serve to reestablish social relations, second, acknowledgement of a ῍differential allocation of status," andthird, when greetings are performed between strangers, ῍there is anelement of guarantee for safe passage" (1971: 74).
Firth (1973) also refers to greeting phenomena as ritual withverbal and non- verbal forms. Verbal forms may be one of three
linguistic units: question (῍How do you do?"), interjection (῍Hello")
or affirmation (῍Good morning") and non- verbal forms are composed of body language.
Laver (1981) views greeting exchanges as having three components: formulaic phrases, address forms, and phatic communionor small talk (῍Nice day for this time of year"). Laver applies thenotion of routine to all three categories, thus proposing that greeting exchanges as a whole are routine rituals.
Firth claims greeting exchanges are an ῍affirmation" of social
status. Laver recognizes the social control element through status insociety, but also adds that greetings may be negotiated between

ῌ 52 ῌ

participants. Laver also proposes that routine rituals serve to preserve face. Using Brown and Levinson’s (1990) notions of face inpoliteness behavior, Laver argues that greeting exchanges constitute routine and thus politeness behavior. Because social interaction
causes risk to face, the use of politeness, i.e., greeting exchanges,
helps mediate the potential for loss of face. Moreover, Laver puts
forth a maxim of face and routine:
῍Maximum risk leads to maximum routine, and conversely,
maximum routine reflect highest risk" (1981: 290).

Anthropological Linguistics Perspective
Fieg and Mortlock (1989) operating from a cross- cultural
viewpoint, offer another interpretation of greetings. They are described in terms of cultural and linguistic differences between
Americans and Thais in three situations: work, passing on thestreet, and personal encounters. Greeting forms are defined as “ritualistic expressions” that carry some type of pragmatic meaning.
What the meaning is, according to the authors, depends on the
speech events as they present them. No explicit linguistic form isgiven other than examples from personal observation.
Their means of analysis focuses on cross cultural pragmatics.
In an example of greeting while passing on the street Americans arereported to say ῍what’s happening?" or ῍what’s new?" According toFieg and Mortlock, these American greetings should have an effecton the listener, causing a non- formulaic response about events
῍impinging on the hearer or what new events have somehow affected the hearer’s life" (1989: 4).
They go on to interpret the intended pragmatic effects as

ῌ 53 ῌ

having a larger cultural basis in American cosmology. The cosmological view is dynamic, open, and engaging; thus Americans are
said to welcome new experiences and offer them up as conversation
topics. Thais, however, influenced by Buddhism, view the universe
as transitory; consequently, events that impinge upon the hearer
are too ephemeral to discuss in a casual greeting.
Fieg and Mortlock attempt to generalize the utility of greetings initially as influences of social factors, and then point out
cross-cultural differences, such as how each culture’s cosmologicalviews influence the meaning of their speech act. The theoreticalconcerns then revolve around notions of culture and provide underlying explanations of purpose. Greetings, in short, are a speech
event with pragmatic meaning and the meaning, in turn, is affectedby cultural perspectives.

Interim Summary
In general greetings represent an acknowledgement of therelationship between two individuals, according to Aymer (1996).
Also, the act sets up the possibility for further relationships. The
kind and number of other parameters involved in greeting exchanges as a speech event, according to academics across the three
disciplines discussed, are expectedly mixed.
Definitions are found on several levels, ranging from arbitrary categories of linguistic form to non- verbal communication.
Indeed, it is difficult to determine where greetings as a speech
phenomena end. Researchers suggest several components of greetings, which further complicate the search for definitive forms.

ῌ 54 ῌ

Method

Subjects
The greeting exchanges used by adults was chosen. For the
purpose of this study, ῍adult" was defined as anyone who appeared
to the author to be 18 years of age or older.

Setting
There are two possible settings that could be looked at. One ofthese is an open casual environment. An open setting would be onethat is available to nearly anyone. Casual was defined as a place
without an institutionalized hierarchy in place. Specific settingschosen for this study were the open areas (the grounds) of university and college campuses, television talk shows, small coffee shops,
restaurants, and areas of large shopping centers where people
gather.
On television talk shows one may see boxers, entertainers,
and working class people with unique talents mixing with others
who are thrust into the limelight for a brief time and then return totheir normal life.
The coffee shops and restaurants proved to be interesting andproblematic situations. People who work with the public often
engage in scripted and routine language behaviors, thus calling into
question whether data collection from this source occurred spontaneously and naturally. Small coffee shops, however, were considered different due to size and previously established relationships ofthe participants. Selected coffee shops had a form of intimacy where
people interacted at what may be considered a personal level. Thereῌ 55 ῌ

was a greater chance that these people would interact again in the
future in contrast to a fast food chain where the pressure is to getcustomers in and out as quickly as possible. An example of one
coffee shop that met the criteria was the Sacred Grounds Coffee
Shop, located in a industrialized section of Arcata, California. Its
customers returned on a regular basis. It was felt that in the establishments chosen, the feeling of intimacy appeared to level things
out and there was no apparent institutionalized structure in place.
The counterpart of an open and casual setting is one that isclosed and structured. Closed was defined as a work place that set
some restrictions on who can be there. Structured was defined as a
stratified system based on a written document or where a de facto
ranking system existed. An example of a closed and structured
environment would be the military service, the construction industry or hotel service sector.

StatusStatus was another factor that could be looked at. Given thelack of access to any situation with a distinct and previously
established status, I could not use this variable as part of my datacollection in the open casual environment without making personal
judgements. Thus, any analysis offered here may be subject to bias.

Passing and Engaging Greetings
Greetings were also classified according to passing and engaging. A passing exchange is defined as the use of an utterance byat least one of the two people involved without any other conversation at that moment. An engaging greeting leads to some form of
conversation after the initial exchange.

ῌ 56 ῌ

Procedure
Greeting exchanges in what appeared to be open situations
were collected from a total of twenty- seven ESL conversation
textbooks selected at random. Public exchanges were gathered fromthe following settings: coffee shops, small restaurants, the groundsof college campuses, television talk shows and the open areas of
shopping malls. Greetings were classified according to four linguistic forms, ‘Hi,’ ‘Good X’ (morning, evening, etc.), ‘Hello,’ and ‘Other.’
Additional characteristics noted were the type of greeting, (mirrored or greeting- response) passing/ engaging, status, and structure.
Mirrored greetings are defined as one of the following linguistic forms where the response is an exact duplicate of the first pairpart. An example of a mirrored greeting would be:

A: Hi.
B: Hi.

A greeting- response is defined as having a question following the first pair part. An example would be:

A: Good morning.
B: How are you?

Status was divided into same and unequal. These two groups
were further divided into mirrored and greeting- response.

ῌ 57 ῌ

Analysis

Texts
A total of twenty seven greeting exchanges were recorded
from what appeared to be open casual situations and fourteen were
found to be of the mirrored ‘Hello’ type. The other thirteen greetings
were closely divided between ‘Good X,’ seven, and ‘Hi,’ six. All of the‘Good X’ were mirrored. The smallest linguistic category, ’Hi’ wasevenly divided between mirrored and greeting- response.
In the status category there were seventeen greetings in thesame group and ten in the unequal category. The ‘Hi’ category was
equally divided in the mirrored and greeting- response sections forboth same and unequal. There were more unequal than same status
in the ‘Good X’ category. In the ‘Hi’ category, there were about threetimes more in the same than in the unequal group.
In the structure section, the open group had nineteen greetings and the closed had eight. The ‘Hi’ category was all in the open
section and the ‘Hello’ category had five times more in the opengroup than the closed. The ‘Good X’ category was the only one that
had less in the open section than the closed, two to six.
There were fifteen engaging greetings and twelve passing
greetings in the books. The ‘Hi’ category had more engaging thanpassing, one to five. ‘Good X’ was about evenly distributed, threepassing and five engaging. There were eight passing and five engaging in the ’Hello’ category.

Real Life Situations
Observed greeting exchanges numbered twenty- two. An interesting factor was that talk show hosts overwhelmingly avoided

ῌ 58 ῌ

greeting exchanges and began their discourse by moving straight
to a topic. For example, they would say something like, ῍You havea new movie or CD out."
The dominant linguistic form, fourteen, from the field was‘Hi,’ while the second highest number of greetings, seven, was foundin the ‘other’ category, specifically greetings involving only firstnames. Subjects would often just start with the first name of theperson they wanted to greet and then move directly into the topic
they wished to discuss. In this other category, three were mirroredand one was greeting-response. The ‘Hello’ category was one behindthe other with three greetings. Of these, two were mirrored and one
was greeting-response. There was only one greeting in the ‘Good X’
category, and it was mirrored.
The status category broke down into same, eighteen, andunequal, three. In the same status group, ten were mirrored andeight were greeting-response. The unequal group had all of its three
greetings in the Greeting-Response. The largest linguistic form
category had thirteen in the same status group. These were about
evenly divided between mirrored, six, and greeting-response, seven.
There was one in the unequal status group and it was in the
Greeting- Response section. In the ‘Other’ category, I recorded two in
the mirrored, same status group and two in the unequal status
Greeting- Response group. The ‘Hello’ category was all in the same
status group. Two were in the mirrored and one in the GreetingResponse section. The lone ‘Good X’ was the same and mirrored.
There were far more passing, sixteen, than engaging, five,greetings. This was also the case in the ῍Hi" category, which had
eleven passing and only three engaging. The ‘Other’ was evenly
divided two and two between passing and engaging. All of theῌ 59 ῌ

‘Hello’ category was passing. The one ‘Good X’ was a passing.

Discussion
More than a few issues must be noted in this study. First, thelack of access to a closed and structured situation was a difficultythat was unfortunate, but real. On the other hand, textbooks presented open situations more than twice as many times as they did
closed. However, it would be good for someone to look at closed
situations to see what form of greetings are used. A potential setting
to be examined is a hotel room cleaning service.
Second, the number of greetings recorded in the field did notyield as much as expected. There could be several reasons for this.
One possible explanation is that people may not greet as much as
we think they do. This project was approached with the assumptionthat greetings were everywhere and data would be plentiful. Yet
this did not seem to be the case. Obviously a longer study consistingof more observers then one would yield larger numbers. Also nonverbal communication was not looked at as it is seldom if everpresented in ESL textbooks. Therefore, if people only nodded or
waved to each other, it was not recorded.
Despite the low frequency of greeting exchanges per se, thedata collected does offer some interim conclusions about the natureof authentic exchanges:(1) The frequency of ‘Hi’ as a greeting exchange did notcorrespond between authentic situations and ESL texts. In real life,’Hi’ was the most frequent linguistic form used; in texts, it was theleast frequent.
(2) Real life greetings rarely involved ‘Good X,’ yet these
forms were the second most prevalent exchange in texts. A possible

ῌ 60 ῌ

explanation is that books present what may be considered by many
to be a formal greeting setting, which has a beginning, middle, andend.
(3) Books use twice as many mirrored as greeting-response. In
contrast, data indicate these two types were used about equally inreal life situations, suggesting textbook writers present stilted, formulaic exchanges. Consequently, students learn routines throughtightly controlled exchanges, but lack flexibility when open ended
interactions occur.
(4) ESL materials present nearly even numbers of passing andengaging greetings. However, in real life, passing exchanges outnumbered engaging by three to one, which is further evidence thattexts tend to present formulas. One possible explanation could befound in the nature of textbook writing. Textbooks, as a written
medium, make it difficult to present passing greetings.
(5) Analysis of status indicated a difference between real life
and textbooks. Materials provided equal numbers of same andunequal status greetings, but, in real life, same status greetings were
presented overwhelmingly. Stratification of participants in texts
does not appear to be the case. Students are exposed to equal statussituations and do not receive information on hierarchical relationships.
(6) Data from real life greetings indicated the use of firstnames as a common greeting exchange. Yet, no ESL text usednames as a possible greeting form. I believe this is significant
evidence that texts omit viable and commonly used greeting exchanges, thus failing to provide students with authentic situations.

ῌ 61 ῌConclusion
This study found that there is a substantial difference between greetings taught in ESL texts and those used in real life. The
authenticity of greetings in textbooks is questionable on several
grounds: lack of variety, inappropriate representation of status, etc.
Textbook writers have frequently been using ’safe’ polite forms ofgreetings in their books. It can only be hoped that more people will
look into this issue in the future. It is also important that teachers be
fexible in their approach and not rely only on textbooks. The use ofhand gestures, body language, and auditory sounds which may playa larger role in greetings should also be considered, according toSchleicher (1997). Also, teachers may want to incorporate the use ofvideos and present alternative ways of greeting people (along withother forms of English) within the classroom setting, according to
Samovar and Porter (1995).

References
Aymer, K. (1996). Conversational Routines in English. New York:
Addison Wesley, Longman.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1990). Politeness: Universals of Language
Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fieg, J. and Mortlock, E. (1989). A Common Core: Thais and Americans. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press, Inc.

Firth, S. (1973). Greetings from the Highlands of Yemen. American
Ethnologist, 13 (2), 290-308.

ῌ 62 ῌ

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public. New York: Basic Books.

Laver, J. (1981). Linguistic routines and politeness in greeting andparting. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversation Routine. 289-305
The Hague: Mouton.

Piazza, R. (1987). Conversational Analysis: A review of the literaturefrom the perspective of sequencing. International Review ofApplied Linguistics, 24 (4), 317-335.

Price, S. (1988). Asking for information: Opening and closing sequences in real life and textbook dialogues. Paper presented atthe 22nd Annual TESOL convention, Chicago, Illinois.

Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. (1983). Conversational Analysis. In
Richards, J.C. and Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman.

Samovar, L. and Porter, R. (1995). Communication Between Cultures.
New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Schegloff, E. (1972). Sequencing in conversational openings. In
Gumpertz, J. and Hymes, D. (Eds.), Directions in Sociolingustics. New York: Blackwell Publishers.

Schegloff, E. and Sacks, H. (1973). Opening and closing. Semiotica, 78, 289-327.

ῌ 63 ῌ

Schleicher, A. (1997). Using greetings to teach cultural understanding. Modern Language Journal, 81 (3), 334-43.

ῌ 64 ῌ