Skip to main content

when phatic communication isn't (... or is it?)

Image
By
HEY, ANYTIME. No biggie. Don't worry about it. Psycholinguistic research reveals that we choose our gratitude acknowledgements pragmatically, proving that such language isn't phatic (devoid of content) after all. University of Western Ontario psychologist Albert Katz suggests men, in particular, may use "anytime" to convey doiminance by signaling they have sufficient means to do the favor again in the future.  -- Conrad McCallum, Psychology Today, March 1, 2008 (emphasis added)

I'm assuming that we would refute the idea that "phatic communication is devoid of content".  Then again, when I just tried to explain what I'm doing research on to the research librarian at the BL, I immediately put it in almost the same simplistic terms.

1. "How are you doing?"

2. "Oh really badly, actually."

3. "Gosh, what's wrong?"

4. "I just stubbed my toe!"

My claim was that Locutions 1-3 are all "phatic" insofar as they contribute to establishing a channel, and Locution 4 is not, insofar as it is actually content-full.  But maybe my illustration (or analysis) is "wrong"?

Anyway, with that thought in mind, the research by Albert Katz is described in more researchy terms as follows:

Abstract. Two studies examined whether the acknowledgments given to an expressed thanks for performing a favor was merely phatic in nature, that is, does not convey information but just serves a social role in establishing and maintaining relationships. We were especially interested in a non-literal form of acknowledgment, responses such as “anytime,” which, if taken literally, invites unwanted intrusions into one's life. In the reported studies the cost of the favor was manipulated (in terms of effort, resources or time needed to perform the favor) and whether the gender of the person performing the favor was the same or opposite as that for whom the favor was done. Across the two studies, the non-literal acknowledgment was less likely to be employed for high-cost favors, was more likely to be recalled compared to other acknowledgments generated at the same base rate and was used differently by female and male participants. These data demonstrate that people moderate their thanks as a function of the cost of the favor and to whom they are speaking, results indicating that gratitude acknowledgments cannot be considered mere phatic communication. In a more general way, these data indicate the importance of considering social knowledge in nonliteral language usage.


From: Katz, Albert N., Melony Lenhardt, and Kirsten Mitchell. "On acknowledging thanks for performing a favor." Metaphor and Symbol 22.3 (2007): 233-250.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The plot thickens (with Herbert Spencer)

By Semiophrenic
In a paper attempting to outline the conceptual domain of comparative psychology , Herbert Spencer discusses the quality of impulsiveness in relation with human races (bearded and unbearded). Among his "sundry questions of interests" about the relationship between mental energy, evolution, complexity, etc. are the following notes: ( b ) What connection is there between this trait and the social state? Clearly a very explosive nature - such as that of the Bushman - is unfit for social; and, commonly, social union, when by any means established, checks impulsiveness. ( c ) What respective shares in checking impulsiveness are taken by the feelings which the social state fosters - such as the fear of surrounding individuals, the instinct of sociality , the desire to accumulate property, the sympathetic feelings , the sentiment of justice? These, which require a social environment for their development, all of them involve imaginations of consequences more or less distant; and th...
4 comments
Read more

Extra channels

By Semiophrenic
In the following, I would like to clarify the connection between channel and context and concomitantly the difference between metachannel and parachannel . Paul Kockelman urges us "to notice the fundamental similarity between codes and channels" (2011: 725) but instead of that purported fundamental similarity points out the contrast between them. I argue that context , or objects and states of affairs (Bühler 2011[1934]: 35), demonstrate a closer relationship to channel than to code. This is largely because the first three fundamental relations, sender or subject , context or object , and receiver or addressee , belong to Bühler's original organon model while code , contact and message , which were previously implicit in the organon model, are made explicit as additions to the model by Jakobson (1985[1976c]). Thus the most productive approach would be to pair a component from the original organon model with an additional component in the language functions model....
3 comments
Read more