III MK IE Relational Dimension of Work Related Talk

7/28/2019 III MK IE Relational Dimension of Work Related Talk

1/21

The relational dimension of

work-related talk

The uniqueness of man () lies not in his abilityto perceive ideas, but to perceive that he

perceives, and to transfer his perceptions toothers minds through words. (Albert Einstein)


2/21

Emilia Placintar - The relationaldimension of work-related talk

2

Introduction: Premises

Language isa socialinstrument for relatingto otherpeople.

Human speech acting has to be set in acontextin order to be valid.

Language uttered in a live context is aprocess ofmutual consensus between the

participants.Conclus ion: The relationalnature of the

human condition is the sine qua non of anyoccasion of spoken communication.


3/21

Emilia Placintar - The relationaldimension of work-related talk 3

Transactional and relational goals

Language has a contentcomponent and a relationship

component

the transactional(information-transferring) and the

interactional(maintenance of relationships) functions

Note

Traditionally, relational goals were seen as entirely

separate from transactional goals and as characterizing

two different kinds of talk.


4/21


Transactional and relational goals

Koester (2006):

a multiple goals approach to discourse =

incorporation of relational aspects of talk into thestudy of workplace discourse

Argument: Building or maintenance of relationships

cannot be considered purposeless as relational talk cancontribute to task achievement.


5/21


Functions of relational talk

Q:What are people trying to achieve when they uselanguage with a relational orientation?

A:Manifestations of relational goals often involve thenotion of politeness or facework.

Politeness theory relevant to interpersonal

communication as it involves a consideration of the

effect of what we say and how we say it on other

people.Politeness a social /contextual judgement; a

question of appropriateness


6/21


Theoretical politeness models:Goffman (1967, 1972)

Face: an individuals positive social value, an imageof self delineated in terms of approved socialattributes (1967: 5).

Facework:

a) defensive

b) protective

Politeness strategies:a) avoidance of face threatening acts (FTA)

b) use of redressive strategies


7/21


Theoretical politeness models:

Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson (1987)

Face: the public self-image that every memberwants to claim for himself

Speakerand Addressee: endowed with positiveface (want for acceptance/involvement) and negativeface (want for independence)

Linguistic strategies (in performing FTAs):

associated with a particular politeness systemdescribed in terms ofpower difference (P), socialdistance (D) and weight of imposition (W) in acertain context


8/21


Rapport Management (RM)Spencer-Oatey, 2000

General presentation:

seeks to explain how language is used tomanage relationships

RM = management of FACE + management of

SOCIALITY RIGHTS = more of a balancebetween SELF and OTHER than Brown&Levinsons politeness model


9/21


Rapport ManagementConceptual issuesASPECTS ofFACE

Face= associated with personal/social values: sense

of worth, dignity, identity, honour, reputation,

competence, etc.

Quali ty face(QF) = sense ofpersonal esteem: afundamental desire to be evaluated positively in

terms of our personal qualities (competence,

abilities, appearance, etc);

Ident i ty face(IF) = sense ofpublic worth: afundamental desire for people to acknowledge and

uphold our social or group identities and roles


10/21


RM: Conceptual issues

SOCIALITY RIGHTS(SRs)

defined as fundamental personal/social

entitlements that individuals effectively claim for

themselves in their interactions with others concerned with peoples personal/social

expectancies of fairness, consideration, social

inclusion/exclusion, etc.


11/21



ASPECTS ofSOCIALITY RIGHTS (1)

Equi ty r ights(ERs):a fundamental belief that we

are entitled to personal consideration and fair

treatment from/by others

Equity entitlement two components:

the notion of cost-benefit the related notion of autonomy-imposition


12/21



ASPECTS ofSOCIALITY RIGHTS (2)

Associat ion r ights(ARs):

a fundamental belief that we are entitled to an

association with others in keeping with the type of

relationship we have with them

relate to

interactionalassociation/dissociation (the type

and extent of our involvement with others)

affective association/dissociation (the extent towhich we share concerns, feelings and

interests)


13/21


Rapport Management: Components(summary)

Facemanagement

Sociality rightsmanagement

Personal/

Independent

perspective

Quality face

(cf. B&Ls positive

face)

Equity rights

(cf. B&Ls

negative face)

Social/

Interdependent

perspective

Identity face Association rights


14/21


14

Rapport-threatening behaviour

through face-threatening behaviour:when we

feel we have lost credibility or have been personally

devalued

through rights-threatening behaviour

Equity rights: when we feel sb has no right to

expect us to do sth

(Dis)Association rights: when sb speaks to us in a

way that is too personal (distant) for our liking


15/21


15

Rapport Management: Interrelated

domains

1) Speech acts domain: rapport threatening / enhancingimplications of performing speech acts

2) Discourse domain: discourse content and discourse structure

3) Part ic ipat ion domain: procedural aspects

4) Styl is t ic domain: choice of tone, of genre-appropriate lexis andsyntax, terms of address or use of honorifics, etc.

5) Non-verbal domain: gestures, eye contact, proxemics, vocalics,etc.

These issues need to be handled appropriately if harmonious

relations are to be created / maintained.


16/21

Emilia Placintar - The relational

dimension of work-related talk

16

Expressing interpersonal meaning(Koester 2006)1.Commitment and detachment

Modality

concerned with degrees of commitment to the

truth of a proposition;

deals with degrees of obligation or necessity

to perform acts.

Hedges and intensifiers

Vague language


17/21



17

Expressing interpersonal meaning

2.Language and affect

Pol i teness vs . sol idar i ty

Politeness: concerned with redressing or avoiding face threateningacts

Linguist ic strategies: indirectness and distancing devices usedto soften and hedge propositions

Solidarity: refers to the affective dimension of interpersonalrelations; involves the expression of mutuality and commonground

Linguist ic strategies: claiming common ground, showinginterest, approval, sympathy, etc.; the use of in-group languageand colloquialisms


18/21



18

Expressing interpersonal meaning3. Evaluative language

Evaluat ion:

refers to the speakers judgments of

goodness or desirability

belongs to the domain of affective stance

encoded lexically through adjectives,

adverbs, nouns and verbs

!!! can be an integral part of theaccomplishment of a task


19/21



19

Expressing interpersonal meaning

3.Other interpersonal markers

Tense

Prosodic and paralinguistic features

Interactive devices echoing

co-operative turn-construction

non-intrusive overlaps

Notes

Interpersonal markers cannot be assumed to have

fixed, stable meanings. Evaluative meanings are often negotiated in naturally

occurring discourse processes.


20/21



20

Conclusions

The integration of the relationalcomponent in a communication

course will enable students to

attend to the other, i.e. to what they are actually saying andhow they are saying it

reflect on how the choice of language both defines and isdeterminedby personal relationships, social conventions, andcultural assumptions

view language as social reality

perform appropriate speech functions in social context

be sensitized to the need for such operational skills inintercultural communication as face management, collaborativedialogue and communication adaptability


21/21



21

Bibliography

Brown, P. and S.C. Levinson. 1978/1987. Politeness:Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on

Face-to-face Behaviour. Chicago: Aldine. Plcintar, E. 2004.A Pragmatic Approach to

Conversation Analysis. Applications to Business

Communication. Cluj-Napoca: EFES, pp. 69-84.

Spencer-Oatey, H. 2000. Rapport management: Aframework for analysis. In H. Spence-Oatey, (Ed.),Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through TalkAcross Cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 11-46.

III MK IE Relational Dimension of Work Related Talk

Documents

Transcript of III MK IE Relational Dimension of Work Related Talk