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
At a glance
- Grade: 2.0 (1.0 is the best grade)
- Examines Zegarac and Clark’s account of phatic communication through Relevance Theory
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 Themes
This paper examines phatic communication through Zegarac and Clark’s application of Relevance Theory. It asks how phatic interpretations are produced and to what extent the term phatic can be applied to conversations.
- Phatic communication and social interaction
- Relevance Theory and cognitive environments
- Communicative intentions and interpretation
- Intuition and degrees of phaticness
- Small talk and conversational storytelling
Excerpt from the Book
Conversational Storytelling
In many cases we can observe that stories are being told during a conversation. Not only does this happen during a conversation among friends but also in business conversations between salesmen and their costumers.
Conversational Storytelling is, like Small Talk, a means to build rapport and to relax a situation (Bickmore/Cassell). In casual conversation this is done by using stories to relate events or humour and show the interlocutors that one is willing to participate in the conversation. In task-oriented talk we can also find storytelling for several purposes. On the one hand, it can be used for the sake of phaticness, which means that the salesman tells a story in order to show that he wants to communicate with the interlocutor and wants to keep the conversation going. On the other hand he can establish expertise with the delivery of a story (e.g. linguistic expertise and intelligence) (Bickmore/Cassell). Furthermore it is a fact that when someone tells anything personal about himself it is likely that the other interlocutor gets encouraged to disclose similar personal information (Bickmore/Cassell).
There are two different kinds of stories which can be delivered during a conversation: spontaneously generated and prepared narratives.
Conversational stories must be relevant to the listener (locally occasioned) tailored for him (recipient designed). This includes the integration of the addressee in the story who gives feedback and is requested for elaboration. Therefore a subject should be chosen which is close in terms of space, time or relationship to the listener. A story which is totally irrelevant to him would mean a loss of the speaker’s face which is caused by the unnecessary waste of time of the addressee. An important element of successful Conversational Storytelling is the right timing. A story should only be embedded into the conversation when it directly refers to the point the interlocutors are discussing about and not at a time when the topic is not relevant anymore (Bickmore/Cassell).
Furthermore the story should be a story the listener is able to identify with, what means that the story should be life-like and not a tall tale or a fantastic yarn. Therefore the story should be specific, affirmative, pas time narratives which tell about a series of events which did take place at specific unique moments in a unique past time world and which are told to others to make a point or transmit a message (Bickmore/Cassell).
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: Introduces the paper’s focus on phatic communication and Zegarac and Clark’s approach within Relevance Theory.
2. Phatic Communication: Uses conversational examples to introduce phatic interpretation and explains manifestness and ostensive-inferential communication.
3. Intuitions: Discusses intuitions about phatic exchanges, their social function and differences in perceived phaticness.
4. Interpretations: Examines communicative and informative intentions, implications and implicatures through illustrative utterances.
5. Degrees of Phaticness: Considers how processing effort and context affect the interpretation of utterances as more or less phatic.
6. Small Talk: Describes small talk as a means of socialising, managing discomfort and establishing rapport.
7. Conversational Storytelling: Explores the social and task-oriented uses of stories, including their relevance to listeners and timing.
8. Conclusion: Brings together the discussion of Relevance Theory, processing effort and the social purposes of phatic conversation.
Keywords
phatic communication, Relevance Theory, ostensive-inferential communication, manifestness, cognitive environment, communicative intention, implicature, intuition, degrees of phaticness, small talk, conversational storytelling, rapport
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this paper about?
It examines phatic communication and how conversational utterances are interpreted as attempts to establish or maintain social contact.
What are its central themes?
The paper addresses Relevance Theory, communicative intentions, phatic interpretation, small talk and conversational storytelling.
What is the paper’s primary aim?
It aims to explain Zegarac and Clark’s account and explore the extent to which the term phatic can be applied to conversations.
What method does the paper use?
It discusses published theoretical work and uses illustrative conversational examples to explain and examine phatic interpretation.
What does the main discussion cover?
It moves from cognitive concepts and intuitions about phatic speech to interpretations, degrees of phaticness, small talk and storytelling.
Which keywords characterise the paper?
Key terms include phatic communication, Relevance Theory, manifestness, implicature, small talk and conversational storytelling.
How does the paper explain different degrees of phaticness?
It considers the effort required to process an utterance and the role of context in directing attention towards its social or explicit meaning.
What role does conversational storytelling play?
The paper discusses storytelling as a way to build rapport, sustain interaction and, in task-oriented conversation, demonstrate expertise.
- Quote paper
- Mergim Bytyci (Author), 2009, Phatic Communication, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/134706
