Phatic Communication
What does it mean when someone asks ´How are you?` Usually the speaker expects to hear a response like ´I am fine, thank you. How are you?`, if he is trying to make ´chit-chat`.
It is assumed that all people are able to seize a distinction between chit-chat and the attempt to conduct a genuine conversation.
To make it easier to understand I will start with two conversations which I am going to analyze:
(1) Groundhog Day
ML: I hope you enjoy the festivities.
PC: Oh I´m sure I´m going to (pulls face).
ML: There´s there´s talk of a blizzard.
PC: Well, we may catch a break and that blizzard´s gonna blow right by us. All of this moisture coming up outta the south by midday is probably gonna push on to the east of us and at high altitudes it´s gonna crystallise and give us what we call snow. (winks) Probably be some accumulation. But here in Punxsutawney our high´s gonna get up to about 30 today, teens tonight, chance of precipitation about 20 per cent today 20 per cent tomorrow. Did you wanna talk about the weather or were you just making chit-chat?
ML: (shrugs and shakes head) Chit-chat.
PC: OK. Right. See you later. B´bye.
ML: Oh em eh will you be checking out today Mr. Connors?
PC: Chance of departure today one hundred per cent.
Obviously MC just wanted to make chit-chat what means that Connor´s detailed answer was inappropriate. Since he is doing this intentionally he could have reasons for his behaviour (e.g. he does not like chit-chat; he does not like MC).
The next example is a conversation between two real estate salesmen:
(2) Glengarry Glen Ross
RR: How are you
GA: Fine (,,) you mean on the board (,) you mean you mean you mean on the board
RR: I (,) yes (,) the board
GA: I’m fucked on the board
Speakers: RR = Ricky Roma; GA = George Aaronow.
Contextual assumptions:
Roma is very successful in contrast to Aaronow, which is a fact well-known to both since their performances are being recorded on the mentioned board in their office. Only the best two salesmen will keep their jobs while the others are about to get fired.
The question which arises is which utterance should be interpreted as phatic and which as non-phatic (if there is anything like that).
Referring to example (1) we can say that Mrs. Lancaster´s attempt to start a verbal exchange could be called phatic since she is trying to make contact with Connor. Connor´s dis-preferred response, however, can be considered as negatively phatic.
As mentioned above, i
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Phatic Communication
2.1 Manifestness
2.2 Ostensive-Inferential Communication
3. Intuitions
4. Interpretations
5. Degrees of Phaticness
6. Small Talk
7. Conversational Storytelling
8. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the nature of phatic communication by integrating the insights of Zegarac and Clark with the framework of Relevance Theory. The primary objective is to move beyond the view of phatic communication as a purely social phenomenon, instead analyzing the cognitive processes and linguistic mechanisms that allow speakers and hearers to engage in non-information-driven verbal exchanges.
- Application of Relevance Theory to phatic interaction.
- Cognitive processes involved in ostensive-inferential communication.
- The role of intuition in distinguishing phatic from genuine conversations.
- Mechanisms of "small talk" and "conversational storytelling" as rapport-building tools.
- Analysis of degrees of phaticness based on processing effort.
Excerpt from the Book
3. Intuitions
An elementary perception is the fact that the purpose of Phatic Communication lies in the act of communicating itself and less (or not) in the information which is conveyed. Malinowski already recognised that in 1923 (Malinowski (1923): quoted in Zegarac/Clark 1999: 328). Among other things he pointed out:
1. In Phatic Communication language is used as a mode of action, rather than for the transmission of thoughts.
2. The various types of Phatic Communication (greetings, gossip, and the like) have something in common: the whole situation in which the exchange takes place consists in, and is largely created by, `what happens linguistically´.
3. In Phatic Communication the mere meaning of the words is almost irrelevant. Rather, the linguistic expressions used fulfil a social function.
4. This social function may be to ´overcome the strange, unpleasant tension caused by silence´ and/or to establish an atmosphere of sociability and personal communion between people.
(Zegarac/Clark 1999: 328)
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the topic of Phatic Communication and introduces the theoretical approach by Zegarac and Clark using Relevance Theory.
2. Phatic Communication: Defines phatic interaction using examples and establishes the necessity of cognitive frameworks like Ostensive-Inferential Communication.
3. Intuitions: Explores how human intuition allows interlocutors to recognize the social purpose of phatic utterances over their literal meanings.
4. Interpretations: Analyzes how communicative and informative intentions create implications that classify an utterance as phatic.
5. Degrees of Phaticness: Discusses how the processing effort required for an utterance determines its degree of phaticness.
6. Small Talk: Examines small talk as a social strategy to mitigate face threats and build rapport in neutral or business settings.
7. Conversational Storytelling: Explains how storytelling is used in conversations to foster sociability and build professional or personal trust.
8. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, emphasizing that phatic communication serves the primary goal of socialization by minimizing processing effort.
Keywords
Phatic Communication, Relevance Theory, Ostensive-Inferential Communication, Manifestness, Intuition, Social Function, Small Talk, Conversational Storytelling, Implicated Premise, Implicated Conclusion, Cognitive Environment, Rapport, Processing Effort, Linguistic Form, Socialization
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this paper?
The paper explores the nature and production of phatic communication, specifically challenging the idea that it is only a social phenomenon by applying cognitive frameworks.
Which theoretical framework is primarily utilized?
The work utilizes Sperber and Wilson's Relevance Theory to explain how phatic interpretations function within human communication.
What is the primary goal of phatic communication according to the text?
The primary goal is the act of communicating itself—specifically to socialize, build rapport, and create a non-hostile atmosphere—rather than the transmission of specific information.
How is phaticness measured or categorized?
Phaticness is categorized by degrees, where an utterance is considered "more phatic" if it requires less processing effort from the hearer and focuses less on explicit propositional meaning.
How does the paper differentiate between phatic and non-phatic talk?
It suggests that humans use intuition to distinguish between exchanges intended to convey information and those intended to simply maintain social contact.
What role does "Small Talk" play in this context?
Small talk is identified as a specific form of phatic communication used to break the ice, mitigate potential face threats, and establish mutual trust.
How does conversational storytelling contribute to phatic interaction?
Storytelling allows speakers to show a willingness to engage, build rapport, and encourage the hearer to reciprocate with personal information, thus sustaining the social bond.
What makes an utterance "negatively phatic"?
A negatively phatic response occurs when a hearer provides an overly informative or inappropriate answer to an attempt at small talk, potentially signaling a desire to avoid social connection.
What are the criteria for a "successful" story in conversation?
Successful storytelling requires relevance to the listener (recipient design), proper timing, and a life-like narrative that the listener can identify with.
Why is "processing effort" important for the speaker?
The speaker must keep the processing effort low so that the conversation remains non-demanding, ensuring the focus remains on the social interaction rather than the complex analysis of the information conveyed.
- Quote paper
- Mergim Bytyci (Author), 2009, Phatic Communication, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/134706
