Language And Communication Flashcards
Turn-taking in conversations
- Conversations characteristically organised in terms of an orderly exchange of turns
- Situations affecting turn-taking:
1) Informal conversations
2) Interviews
3) Ceremonies and rituals
Walker (1982): turn-taking in informal conversations
- Focused on informal one-to-one conversations
- Transitions between speakers are finely timed
- Transition pauses are often less than 200 milliseconds
- This suggests that the completion of speaking turns in projectable
Duncan and Fiske (1972, 1985): turn-yielding cues
- They identified 6 different signals:
1) Rise or fall in pitch at the end of a clause
2) Drawl on final syllable
3) Termination of hand gestures
4) Stereotyped expressions e.g ‘you know’
5) Drop in loudness
6) Completion of a grammatical clause - Display of cues strongly associated with smooth speaker switch
De Ruiter, Mitterer and Enfield (2006): managing turn in conversation
- Participants can predict turn ends accurately
- Hearing original recordings: high accuracy
- Intonation synthesised to produce flat pitch (words and syntax intact): still accurate
- When speech content filtered (but intonation unchanged): performance deteriorates significantly
- This suggests that speech content and syntax are most important for predicting turn endings
Interruptions
- Interruptions typically involve simultaneous speech but can occur silently (e.g stopping mid sentence while thinking)
- Not all simultaneous speech is interruptive. This is known as back-channels e.g ‘yeah’, ‘uh huh’
Types of interruptions: Roger, Bull and Smith (1988)
- Interruptions occur across two main dimensions:
1) Single or complex
2) Successful or unsuccessful - Excessive interruptions can results in conversational breakdown, however interruptions are not always problematic
Interruptions in specific contexts: medical consultations (Menz and Al-Roubaie, 2008)
- Doctors interrupt patients more often than vice versa
- Patients are less likely to succeed in interrupting, especially with senior doctors
- More interruptions by doctors result in longer consultations
Manterrupting
- This refers to the unnecessary interruption of a woman by a man
- It can result in a female’s frustration due to being ignored, silenced or sidelined in personal or professional conversation
Och (2020): manterrupting in politics
- Analysed debates in the German Bundestag
- He found that women were 17.7% more likely to be interrupted than men
- Women interrupted men more often than vice versa
- Manterruptions not systematic or frequent enough to be considered as resistance against women
- Interruptions more about political opposition than gender
Speech content: equivocation
- Referred to as the gentle of saying nothing by saying something
- Non-straightforward communication, ambiguous, contradictory, tangential, obscure or even evasive
- Intentional use of imprecise
- Calculated ambivalence
Equivocation theory (Bavelas et al, 1990)
1) Situational theory of communicative conflict (STCC): Equivocation occurs in response to a communicative conflict (CC), where all responses to a question have a negative response, yet a response is still expected
2) Dimensions: there are 4 ways in which a response may be equivocal:
- Sender (speaker’s own opinion?)
- Content (clarity?)
- Receiver (addressed to the other person in the situation?)
- Context (direct answer to the question?)
Bavelas et al (1990): experiments on equivocation
- Participants presented with conflictual situations
- Types of equivocal responses displayed:
1) Subtle changes in responses
2) Deferred replies
3) Hints - Responses to CCs rates as significantly more equivocal
Role of ‘face’
- Represents prestige, honour or reputation
- Other people thinking well of you
- Bello and Edwards (2005): found that poor presentations in a public-speaking class resulted in individuals protecting both their own face and face of others
Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT)
- Based on similarity-attraction theory
- Reducing dissimilarities may lead to a more favourable evaluation
- This theory evolved out of an earlier theory called Speech Accommodation Theory (SAT)
Speech Accommodation Theory (SAT)
- SAT was initially concerned with accent, which affects how people are perceived
- Accent refers to pronunciation and is a part of dialect
- Dialect refers to the distinct manner of speech that differs in pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar
Fuertes et al (2012): accent prestige
- Found that standardised accents were rated higher in status, solidarity and dynamism
Accent change
- Accent change may take one of two directions:
1) Divergence: increasing accent differences
2) Convergence: Adjusting towards another’s accent (upward or downward depending on prestige) - Willemyns et al (1997): study of Australian job interviews, and found that applicants accents converged with their interviewer’s accent. They disagreed that their accents had become broader, with women disagreeing more than men
- Bourhis and Giles (1977): Welsh learners converged/diverged their accents based on integrative or instrumental motivations
Optimal convergence
- Speaker evaluations most favourable when convergence was moderate (not overdone)
Elderspeak
- over-accommodation can appear patronising (e.g over simplified or infantilised speech)
Facial expressions of emotion: the importance of the face
1) Sending capacity of different body parts:
- Average transmission time
- Number of expressions
- Visibility
2) Face:
- Muscles changes are rapid
- Offers a wide range of expressions
- Usually clearly visible
Charles Darwin’s (1872): 6 basic emotions
- Expressions evolved as a part of actions necessary for life:
1) Disgust
2) Anger
3) Surprise
4) Fear
5) Sadness
6) Happiness
Disgust
- Expelling offensive matter from the mouth
- Upper lip raised
- Lower lip slightly protruding
- Nose wrinkled
- Cheeks raised
- Lines below the lower eyelid
- Eyelids paused up
Anger
- Preparing to attack
- Frowning
- Eyebrows lowered and drawn back to protect eyes in anticipation of attack
- Lips pressed firmly together or mouth open (if shouting)
- Baring teeth (vestigial remnant of preparing to bite)
Surprise
- State of readiness to deal with unexpected event
- Eyebrows raised to open eyes wide to facilitate sight
- Jaw drops open to allow of quick intake of air
Fear
- Readiness to deal with frightening events
- Eyebrows raised (facilitate vision)
- Upper eyelids raised but tense
- Mouth open but tense
Sadness
- Eyebrows may be drawn together or raised
- Corners of mouth drawn down
- Lips may appear to tremble
Happiness
- Corners of lips drawn back and up
- Mouth may part to expose teeth
- Cheeks may be raised
- Crow’s feet
Functions of facial expressions (Darwin)
- Darwin provided an explanation for disgust, fear, anger and surprise
- He was less successful for happiness and sadness
- But smiling and crying may also be seen as innate behaviours attached to happiness and sadness with their own functions:
- Crying signals distress to gain attention of caregiver
- Smiling to maintain that attention
Bull (1987): the role of posture
- Posture can convey observer emotions and attitudes
- Participants rated videos (with soundtrack):
> some intended to evoke interest or boredom
> others to evoke agreement or disagreement - Ratings were used to interpret postures displayed while viewing the videos
- He found that body posture alone can be a sting indicator of different attitudes of listeners
Vacharkulksemsuk et al (2016): posture and dating
1) Study 1:
- Observational coding of postures during speed-dating (4 minutes per pair)
2) Study 2:
- 6 confederates (3 male, 3 female) posed with expansive (outgoing) or contradictive (introverted) postures on dating apps
- Expansive postures significantly increased:
> ‘yes’ response from speed-dating partner
> likelihood of being selected on dating app
- Non-verbal affiliations (e.g smiles, laughs) was not a significant predictor of speed-dating ‘yes’ response
- Greater male benefit on the app
Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1973): innate hypothesis of facial expressions
- Observed children born deaf and blind
- He found appropriate facial expressions of emotion appropriate for situational context
- Suggests an innate bias
Oster and Ekman (1977): innate hypothesis of facial expressions
- All but one of the muscle actions visible in the adult identified in new born infants
- This suggests that infants have the capacity for facial expressions from birth, however they are not necessarily innately associated with particular emotions
The neuro-cultural model
- This model supports the idea that there are 6 fundamental innate expressions, however it argues that the display rules of these emotions vary according to culture:
1) Attenuation
2) Amplification
3) Concealment
4) Substitution - Display rules may also vary according to gender, status, even to individuals
Two types of facial expression
- Innate/spontaneous
- Learned/posed
- Supported by case studies of brain
Rinn (1991): case studies of brain damage
Participants had either:
- Paralysis of voluntary facial movement
- Spontaneous facial expression
- Participants who couldn’t smile on request (paralysis of voluntary facial movements) could when amused (spontaneous)
- Participants who could smile of request (paralysis of spontaneous facial expressions) couldn’t smile spontaneously
- This supports the idea of 2 separate systems
Micro-expressions vs subtle expressions
- Micro-expressions: extremely Beria (1/25th of a second)
- Subtle expressions: partial expressions (e.g nose wrinkle is a partial expression for disgust)
Warren et al (2009): Deception detection
- This correlates with skill at perceiving subtle and micro-expressions
- Participants (encoders) described interests and hobbies then lied or honestly described pleasant/unpleasant films
- Overall accuracy at detection was 50%
- Emotional lie detection significantly better than chance (64%)
- Non-emotional lie detection was only 34%
- Emotional lie detection correlated with SETT (strategic use of evidence technique) and self-reported use of facial expressions
Rhetoric devices (RD) in political speeches (Atkinson)
- They indicate when applause is appropriate
- Project a completion point
- Evidence: close synchrony between speech and applause
Heritage and Greatbatch (1986): contrasts and lists
- Analysis of speeches from 1981 conferences of UK main political parties
- Contrasts were responsible for 33.2% of collective applause
- Lists were responsible for 12.6% of collective applause
- Nearly 50% of applause were the result of Atkinson’s two primary devices
Further RDs
- Puzzle-solution
- Headline-punchline
- Position taking
- Combination
- Pursuit
Criticisms of Atkinson’s analysis: Asynchrony (Bull and Wells, 2002)
- Only 65% of applause synchronised by speech as suggested by Atkinson
- This suggests an overestimation of synchrony in Atkinson’s research
- Applause is not always as orchestrated as Atkinson said
Criticisms of Atkinson’s analysis: speech content (Bull, 2000)
- Applause can occur in response to statements praising the politician’s own party, or attacking the opposition
- The content may be so potent that applause can occur without the use of RDs
Criticisms of Atkinson’s analysis: invited and uninvited applause (Bull and Wells, 2002)
- Applause can also occur uninvited
- 14% of all applause occurred were uninvited
- There are two main reasons for uninvited applause:
1) Direct response to speech content
2) Misreading of RDs
Criticism of Atkinson’s analysis: delivery (Bull and Wells, 2002)
- Delivery increases the chance of a RD receiving applause
- Delivery indicates whether or not a RD is to be taken as an applause invitation
- When delivery indicated applause invitation: synchronous applause (98%)
- When delivery did not indicate applause invitation: asynchronous applause (98%)
- Delivery as important as RDs for synchrony
Criticisms of Atkinson’s analysis: culture differences in invitations (Bull and Feldman, 2011)
- Different cultures vary in methods to which they indicate applause invitations
- Analysis of Japanese general election speeches revealed common use of explicit invitations as oppose to the use of implicit methods Atkinson suggested:
- 68% of applause instances caused by explicit invitations
- 71% of affiliation responses caused by explicit invitations
- The use of implicit devices may be common in UK but not in all cultures
Criticisms of Atkinson’s analysis: culture differences in affiliation responses (Bull and Miskinis, 2015)
- Large cultural variations in affiliative audience responses
- Analysis of US presidential election speeches:
- Applause accounted for only 8% of audience responses
- Cheering the most common: 66%
- Chanting, booing etc
Equivocation in political interviews
- This refers to the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself
Research on politicians equivocating
- Bull (1993): analysed 33 interviews of leaders of UK biggest parties and found the mean reply rate for explicit answers was only 46%
- Harris (1991): mean reply rate of 43%
- Waddle and Bull (2020): mean reply rate 38%. They developed a typology of equivocation, identifying 43 ways in which politicians avoid answering questions
Why do politicians equivocate?
- It may be seen as part of a politicians personality
- It may be the result of certain questions in political interviews called conflictual questions (CC). These create pressures to equivocate where all answers to the questions have negative consequences
Types of face-threatening questions
- Personal face
- Face of the party they represent
- Face of a significant other
Bull (2003): audience participation in political interviews
- Politicians answered significantly more voter questions than interviewer’s questions (73% of voter’s compared to 47% of interviewer’s)
- Interviewers asked significantly more CC questions than voters (58% compared to 19%)
- Correlation between CC questions and equivocation
- So interviewers asked more CC questions and received fewer answers
Gender differences in speech (Lakoff, 1973): female speech
- Forms of politeness
- Tactful, hesitant, lower in authority
- Use of hedges (perhaps, I think)
- Frequent tag questions (isn’t it?)
- Higher grammatical accuracy
- Use of intensifiers (extremely, so)
- Low in humour
Gender differences in speech (Lakoff, 1973): male speech
- More direct, explicit
- More interruptive for controlling the conversation
- Use of foul language
- More simplified language for social bonding
- Higher in humour
Critique of his findings are that these claims were based on personal observation
Hedges
- These are mitigating devices that lessen the impact of an utterance e.g ‘you know’
- Holmes (1986): study focused on the functions of ‘you know’:
Women tend to use it more to convey certainty
Men used it to convey uncertainty - Holmes (1985): study focused on the functions of ‘I think’:
Women tend to use it as a booster rather than a hedge
Men tend to use it more as a hedge than a booster
Tag questions
- Questions that turn a statement into a question e.g ‘doesn’t it’
- Holmes (1985) identified 4 principle functions of tag questions:
1) Convey uncertainty
2) Facilitate conversation
3) Confrontational
4) Soften the face of criticism - Uncertainty tags were used more by men
- Facilitative tags were used more by women
