Academic - Book Review
Conversational analysis: Understanding how turn-taking linguistically attempts
to attain conversational dominance in David Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross.
David Worster in his essay ‘How to Do Things with Salesmen: David Mamet's Speech - Act
Play’ puts the literature of David Mamet, especially, ‘Glengarry Glen Ross’ in the light that
the raison d'être of language and dialogue is merely conversational dominance. In this
essay, David Worster perorates (Page 14, Paragraph 1).
‘The more closely the use of language in Glengarry Glen Ross is examined, the more
evident it becomes that the primary purpose of utterance is not to communicate, but to
claim power or to withhold it from others. “Dominance and subservience are established
independently of the lexical content of the exchanges.” ….. the construction of a power
relationship that has nothing inherently to do with locution.’
David Mamet drew on his experience of working in a real estate agency to author Glengarry
Glen Ross, the work that won him the coveted ‘Pulitzer Prize’. Nightingale, B. (2004).
Glengarry Glen Ross. In C. Bigsby (Ed.), “The Cambridge Companion to David Mamet”
(Chapter 5), précises Mamet’s experience as ‘David Mamet spent part of 1969 in a Chicago
real-estate office he has described as “a fly-by-night operation” trying to sell “worthless
land to elderly people who couldn't afford it”.’
Glengarry Glen Ross is a play that portrays the theme of a ruthless world of sales and
describes the paramount importance of competition and ambition for the salesmen. It also
explores the cutthroat or rather more appropriately dog-eat-dog world of sales, where
strategically used arguments, diction, and pauses are the apparatuses to create an ‘effect’
for manipulation through conversational dominance. The glib and the linguistic dominance
was important owing to the facts that the selling practices of the agency were unscrupulous
at best. The first contributing factor was the importance of the sales supremacy (closings)
within the agency which had a cyclic nature as far as the ‘leads’ were concerned. Numbers
were achieved via getting the best leads to ensuring that your name appears on the agency
barometer of performance (the in-your-face blackboard) and numbers, in turn, assured
Page 1 of 9
that you get the best leads, as well. And on the client end, every sales person was aware
that they were selling the proverbial ‘sand castles’ to unsuspecting old people. The crafty
homily added with the legerdemain to concoct an environ where the customer was left all
but in a state of hypnotic reverie, were quintessential for the sales people to warrant that
they shepherd the customer towards covenanting to the sale. These factors mandated that
one’s communication arsenal was awash with all the linguistic dominance one could amass.
Mamet sets the tone from the very first conversational lines (Scene 1, Page1, Line 2) of
the play, where Levine starts with ‘John...John...John. Okay. John. John. Look: (pause)’.
If one must focus on this line from a conversational slant, dissecting what is being said
and what is actually purported, unquestionably, the linguistics of the line would seem to
communicate ‘Hey...Hey...Hey. Okay. John. John. Look: (pause)’. Rife with a pause at
the end, it seems like the line was intended to insinuate ‘Hey, you listen to me, Ok!’, and
with that Levine yearns to take the colloquial ‘driving seat’ in this interaction using his
conversation as a means of dominance. It is this routine of linguistic semantics being used
as a medium for conversational dominance, that we would reconnoitre in this essay.
Mamet, whilst adapting the play as a screenplay for its film version, added the monologue
‘Always Be Closing’, which, according to the script must be the dictum of everyone in his
office. Shane Gibson says ‘Always Be Closing…does not mean you’re always closing the
deal, but it does mean that you need to be always closing on the next step in the process.’
This is the maxim seemingly all the salesmen live by. Even a short trip to a Chinese
restaurant is a chance to close a deal or pave the way to closing a deal by ascertaining
the securing of best leads available with the agency. The play confronts the view of reality
about ‘hierarchical position system’ that fabricates staggered stages or layers between
different individuals in every sphere of society. It is based on the predominant theme of
power struggle between the characters who use linguistic creativity as a tool for persuasion
and manipulation. The power struggles are depicted in disparate ways dependent upon
the persona of the characters in the play. Richard “Ricky” uses his glib and an innate sense
of judging other people’s weaknesses to create an ambience where he ‘builds up’ the
Page 2 of 9
conversational labyrinth, eddying the other person into it and then closes in for the kill at
the end, almost like a predator waiting to pounce on the prey patiently waiting for the
most opportune moment. His conversation with James Lingk (Scene 3, Page 33 - 37)
exemplifies his guile in ‘controlling’ a turn-talk. The Manager, John Williamson uses his
hierarchical position and his prerogative to distribute the ‘leads’ as he fancies as his trump
card in his mannerism & linguistics. Thereby, maintaining his ‘power’ & ‘control’, and also
impeding any power struggle coming his way.
The characters in the play Glengarry Glen Ross, are shown as creatures unsheathing
interest through the same sales language pool and exploiting their verbal dexterity. In the
play, the language of all the salesmen is strictly self-referential and filled with
characteristic typical of ‘sales talk’, indicative of real and imagined power relationships
that are usually demonstrated by use of offensive words and impertinent language. The
use of conversational adroitness is necessitated by the fact that they all are vying for the
most prime slice from the same ‘piece of cake’ i.e. the sales leads available with
Williamson. So, they resort to any or all conduits at their disposal, including bribery,
intimidation, flattery, emotional blackmail or creating a divide to latch up on to the best
possible and ‘closable’ leads out of the kitty of ‘suspects’ available with the agency. To
claim their prerogative each uses the standard sales language to their own benefit. Levene
uses his experience and sales ‘closing’ precedents to control the turn-talk by trying to
guide the conversation to his own benefit of getting the best leads. Roma uses his glib and
Williamson’s greed to always heist the best leads. Moss uses loud mouthed flamboyance
to create the effect of a worthy ‘closer’ and finally, the agency owners Mitch and Murray
use the non-verbal language of the sales and dictate that ‘In sales only the “numbers”
rule’. To attain their conversational dominance, they subject every sales person to a ‘sales
competition’ where only the top two shall be allowed to stay in the organization. In
essence, the entire ensemble of characters uses their own inimitable variation of sales
language to attain their goal of ‘Always be closing’.
Dramatic discourse in the play focuses on the verbal exchange of thoughts between the
characters, who in the given time & space interact with each other. Here language has the
Page 3 of 9
most vital role to play as it shows the reciprocal relationship with power, authority, and
dominance in a linguistic analytical approach. Shelly Levene and John Williamson keep the
discussion going just to accomplish the conversational dominance. Williamson being
positive of his authority uses short, curt and crisp sentences. Williamson uses his to-thepoint approach as a perfect linguistic counterfoil for the lengthy argumentative language
demeanour displayed by Levene. The quality & quantum of syllables used by both
Williamson and Levene establishes the power equation in this dramatic setting. Levene
with his adoption of long argumentative sentences dramatises his language aimed at
manoeuvring the conversation, so that he controls the drift of entire turn-talk. Williamson’s
conduct, along with his language portrays his smug position as the ‘boss’ and also his
dislike for Levene. This is itself conveyed by Williamson to Levene in the sentence (Scene
3, Page 90) ‘Because I don't like you’.
The entire fabric of the banter between Williamson and Levene is embellished with two
sparkling facets, namely, the blatant (unethical as well, one may say) misuse of power by
the manager for massaging his ego & quenching his financial greed and ‘Sales Leads’.
Whilst one is undertaking to analyse a treatise on the ‘world of sales’ by subjecting it to
the microscope of ‘linguistic attempts to attain conversational dominance’, it also becomes
imperative that we put some light on the importance of leads in the parlance of ‘world of
sales’. This is itself qualified and quantified by Mamet in the lines (Scene 3, Page 89)
“WILLIAMSON
Where have you been, Shelly?
Bruce and Harriet Nyborg.
Do you want to see the
memos...? They're nuts... they used to call in every week. When I was with Webb. And
we were selling Arizona...they're nuts...did you see how they were living? How can you
delude yours...
LEVENE
I've got the check...
WILLIAMSON
Forget it. Frame it. It's worthless.”
Page 4 of 9
It’s crystal clear from this interchange, that blinded by his ego and dislike for Levene, the
manager Williamson forwarded an untenable lead to him and lets him waste four months
on a dead lead. The linguistics here epitomise domination achieved via word play and if
one has to read between the syllables and interpret the devious words of Williamson, his
words convey ‘Levene, keep living in the “fools’ paradise” and look at you! (Sic) running
around like a “headless chicken” without scrutinising the facts. Now, who is the smarter
one here?’ This interchange comes after Levene had tried to use his superficial success of
closing a deal (Scene 3, Page 89) ‘What sales...? I closed eighty-two grand... Are you
fuckin'... I'm back... I'm back, this is only the beginning’. Using the litmus of ‘linguistic
attempts to attain conversational dominance’ on Levene’s sentence the result would be
‘Oh Yeah! Oh, Yeah! Now that’s Levene on the fast track, lemme now see how this ***
Williamson doesn’t bow for the phoenix rising as a king in the making’
They use turn management, that is, the directive of changeover of turns in a conversation
and discourse where participants speak one at a time in alternating turns. This changeover
of turns can be accomplished mainly in two different ways, firstly, the current speaker can
select the next speaker by naming, gesturing or gazing at them or, secondly, the next
speaker can self-select themselves. In the extract, it is clear how Levene uses direct
interrogatives and seeks a response from Williamson (lines 2, 8, 12, 13, 15, 19 and 21)
but there are instances when Williamson interrupts and self-selects himself (lines 11, 14,
27, 43, etc.) to prompt Levene of his superior status. In this turn-talk the difference
between the conversation panaches of Williamson and Levene is stark, to say the least.
Levene uses all the forms of linguistic variations in his pursuit of establishing authority &
control over Williamson. Starting with the aggressive use of words, then asking for
apologies for his language, followed by trying to bribe and finally almost supplicating
(citing his daughter), to urge Williamson to give him leads. Whereas, on the other hand,
Williamson’s bearings and language always remain almost indistinct, giving out the
linguistic signal that ‘I am not interested’. On the other hand, the conversation between
Ross and Williamson (Scene 3, Page 92 – Last line and Page 93 first lines) is based on the
undercurrent of Ross being the Top sales person. In these lines, Ross is virtually arm
Page 5 of 9
twisting Williamson (who has the hierarchical authority and superiority) to give him fresh
leads and also to route the leads handled by Levene to him.
In a text by Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson, turn-taking is referred
to as the ‘speech exchange system’. According to which, Levene’s and Williamson’s
spontaneous conversation is considered both ordered and orderly. There is the ‘turn
allocation component’ (Sacks et al.1978; Levinson 1983: 296–303) here which regulates
the continuous changeover of turns between the two characters. The ‘one-party-speaksat-a-time’ (Sacks et al.1978; Levinson 1983: 296–303) rule is very prevailing in the
conversation as well. Levene being the initiator of the conversation has a larger part of
dialogue but still seems weak, submissive & insecure and tries his level best to get a better
deal. At many times, at a ‘Transition Relevance Place’ (Sacks et al.1978; Levinson 1983:
296–303), Williamson shows his coherent interference which clearly depicts signs of
dominance but the speaking flow undoubtedly still belongs to Levene. The simple A-B-AB turn-allocation strategy is used as there are only two interlocutors. The transitions are
smooth but Levene’s long speeches illustrate conflict in the opinions of the two.
The classical turn taking conversational approach is adopted through-out ‘Glengarry Glen
Ross’ by Mamet. To maintain the true character of the technique, adequate pauses
whether in form of a pause by virtue of silence or a pause by virtue of monosyllables’ like
hmm, umm, I… etc. are deployed. The pauses in this case act as a punctuation of the
spoken language. It is to ensure that the listener gets enough time to absorb what is being
said and also gives him ample time to take the cue that it is now his opportunity to reply.
The pauses do act as the syntax, but the turn taking conversation methodology ensures
that the interlocutors are able to evaluate each other and also devise their strategy for
conversational dominance. The use of turn taking methodology is displayed eloquently
between Levene and Williamson’s discussion of persuasion. In this act, Levene starts by
trying to take the control of the conversation using talking in turns and pausing. He uses
aggressive arguments and accusatory language laced with profanities. But, when this
Page 6 of 9
approach doesn’t yield desired consequence he alters to a mellowed down approach. All
of this is aimed at maintaining the conversational dominance in his turn talk with
Williamson. The same method is replicated in various conservations across the play. As an
example, Roma uses the turn talk with Lingk (Scene 3, Page 63 onwards) allowing him
just a slight time to react, then controls the conversation using the old political idiom, ‘If
you can’t convince them, confuse them’, to his advantage to attain conversational
dominance. During his talk, he also tries to cajoles Lingk into assuming that he is Lingk’s
well-wisher, whereas all that matters to Roma is his sale quota and thereby his sales
commission getting cancelled, in case Lingk walks away from the deal.
All the sales people in the play use long sentences with various persuasive arguments to
drive home their point, thus trying to control the dynamics of the conversation aimed at
securing the best leads through the other interlocutor, their sales manager. Whereas to
have the conversational dominance, Williamson refrains from any flamboyant use of
language and sticks to short sentences in line with the age-old wisdom ‘If speech is silver,
then Silence is Gold’ as it is often said that ‘The more you talk more mistakes you make’.
Thus, he maintains his conversational dominance by being distant during turn-talking and
exerting his hierarchal position of eminence.
The mission for conversational dominance aimed at achieving personal power & fortune,
in turn, is illustrated in Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross, through characters having personas
ranging from unethical to ethical, aggressive to submissive, favoured to unflavoured etc.
and their linguistics crafted in accordance with their persona. Is language merely a tool to
express oneself? Mamet, surely won’t agree, but then it is a ‘hell’va’ tool.
From personal experience, would quote a discussion about language. An uncle of mine and
self used to discuss what refined the language pertinently. With no solution available, the
uncle said about how long we may continue the discussion, my learned uncle gave an end
solution. Uncle said, ‘Think about what language is for you’. I answered ‘For me, it is like
Page 7 of 9
a knife which am sharpening continuously’. And uncle’s answer still rings in my ears like
church bells. He said ‘Don’t sharpen any knife in you as much that the ends are so
sharpened, that they become brittle and might FALL OFF at the first use. And also
remember this knife can cut and hurt as well.’
Word Count: 2693
Page 8 of 9
References
•
•
Worster, David. "How to Do Things with Salesmen: David Mamet's Speech-Act
Play." Modern Drama 37, no. 3 (fall 1994): 375-90.
Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson, 1978, “Studies in the
organization of conversational interaction”, Academic Press, Inc.
•
Mamet, David. Glengarry Glen Ross. London: Methuen, 1984.
•
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-david-
•
mamet/glengarry-glen-ross/82E6D93BCAC421413E5BA16DB874BC48
Nightingale, B. (2004). Glengarry Glen Ross. In C. Bigsby (Ed.), “The Cambridge
Companion to David Mamet” (Cambridge Companions to Literature, pp. 89-102).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CCOL-
Page 9 of 9