Occupation/Power Flashcards
accommodation theory
convergence - matching downward convergence - more regional upward convergence - more refined mutual convergence - both parties alter divergence - seperating
grice
manner- avoid ambiguity relevance - relevant to ongoing context quantity- not saying more nor less quality - truthful implicature - seems you are not cooperating but you are, shared understanding
drew and heritage rules
special rules in hierarchal settings
different in workplace rather than normal conversation
lakoff politeness principle
dont impose
give options
make receiver feel good
atkinson
hyper formal turn taking in parliament
links to idea of certain workplaces having asymmetry be accentuated
holmes and stubbe
those in higher position can downplay or assert authority to alter their status
blank
change language in an attempt to fit in social situations and exert influence
brown and levinson 1987 pp
positive politeness
showed people they liked and admired
compliments
social superior reducing distance
brown and levinson 1987 np
shown when wanting to avoid intruding
indirect language that is apologetic
keeping titles
goffman 1955
face
present an image to others at changes in different situations
cooperation principle says we respect and accept people presentation
FTA: refusing the face we are being offered and mocking/ challenging it
this is rare as people dont want their face challenged - maintains status
french and raven
5 ‘bases of power’
legitimate - genuine e.g teacher=student
referent - rapport with people e.g teacher covers a lesson = friendship/loyalty or gain referent power
expert - superior knowledge e.g listen to teacher= knowledge you will need
reward - reward in exchange of compliance or withhold for lack of e.g sweet for correct answer
coercive - force someone to do something e.g headteacher makes teacher mark a certain way
kim and elder 2009
korean pilots and air traffic staff
experiencing miscommunication when talking to american colleagues
not due to language difference
unhelpful abbreviation, unneccessary elaborations, idiomatic phrases
politicians language
pauses for dramatic effect rp emotive language humanises them gesticulation paralinguistic features everyone as a whole rhetorical questions lack of fillers makes them trustworthy
inferential frameworks
knowledge built upon over time and used in order to understand meanings that are implicit
lexis used for purpose
companies = euphemisms for difficult situations
e.g released - fired
idiomatic phrases
group of words not meaning what they appear e.g bringing home the bacon (money)
language link to occupation
develop own features
source of lang change
attitudes to society
acronyms
speciailsed lang
used for speed, efficiency and privacy
pcso - police community support officer
michael nelson
british national corpus
clear semantic field of business e.g premises, departments, depot
less lexis to do with personal issues
overlap of lexis in occupations
misinterpretation
acronyms
accents
double meanings
vague language
occupational register
word/phrases used soley in particular job
originated in specfic job and now more widely used
lexis in occupation
well educated spoke latin/borrowed words from latin to expand language
80% english is latin words
60% english have greek or latin origin
10% of latin found into english without intermediary (usually french)
influential power
persuade others to do something
used to get people to join politicians
control people with a certain view
restricted terms
words/phrases only used specifically in settings e.g court, hopsital
synthetic personalisation
personalised language such as 2nd person pronoun ‘you’
contruct a ‘fake’ relationship between text producers and receivers
wareing 1999
classified power as political (law enforcement, politicians)
personal (occupation)
social (class, age, gender)
jargon
not understood by everyone sounds professional unnecessarily complex scientific and technical euphemisms distract vague and imprecise sometimes
syntactic patterning
when the order of words has developed a pattern of repetition or a similar order throughout e.g same tone
linguistic relatively
how the structure of a language affects the way in which respective conceptualise their world e.g their view
herbert and straight
in conversations, compliments are paid but move down the hierarchy
e.g boss pay you one more than you pay your boss one
koester
workplace is varied
divide conversations - transactional and interactional
transactional= making a transaction e.g getting something done
interactional= serving a social purpose
fairclough
conversations at work lead to ‘conversationalisation’
become less formal overtime
plain english campaign
reduce amount of jargon
detracts from the ‘plain english’
spolsky
become persuaded into the group
stand out in a bad way if you dont know/use jargon
john swales
'the web of discourse' being part of 'discourse community' share common purpose and goals similarities and differences e.g boss and employee using same jargon, boss using language differently
crystal
jargon leads to efficiency
optimal communication
group identity
‘elite’ members can emerge e.g boss knows more jargon
kollataj
some language like slang has stigma
jargon doesnt
herrgard
time constrained situations e.g kitchen
jargon works well for efficiency
althusser
disturbs thoughts if you dont know/ use jargon
drew and herritage
relevant jargon makes it more efficient
goal orientated conversations
achieve work placed goal
myers- scotton
code switch to one with the most benefits
up and down registers
increased politeness markers e.g fronting imperative with ‘please’
hornyak
conversations initiated by those who have the most power
thornborrow
workplace built with asymmetrical power
different people have different amounts of power
gavruseva
built on roberts and sarangi research
many different ‘discourse identities’
talk to different people differently
herring
technology and gender has influence on work based language
emails- men use harsher and less euphemised methods of expression, women more emotional responses seeking personal touch
roberts and sarangi
challenged previous theories
workplace roles are negotiated by conversation
arent fixed
heritage
turn taking structure happens in transactional conversations
person with most power asks most questions
