Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T07:07:07.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“How are you?”: Negotiating phatic communion1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Justine Coupland ,
Nikolas Coupland  and
Jeffrey D. Robinson
Justine Coupland
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied English Language Studies, University of Wales College of Cardiff, Cardiff CF1 3XE, UK
Nikolas Coupland
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied English Language Studies, University of Wales College of Cardiff, Cardiff CF1 3XE, UK
Jeffrey D. Robinson
Affiliation:
Communication Arts and Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since its introduction by Malinowski in the 1920s, “phatic communion” has often been appealed to as a concept in sociolinguistics, semantics, stylistics, and communication, typically taken to designate a conventionalized and desemanticized discourse mode or “type.” But a negotiation perspective, following the conversation analysis tradition of research on greetings and troubles telling, fits the discursive realities better. Phaticity is a multidimensional potential for talk in many social settings, where speakers' relational goals supercede their commitment to factuality and instrumentality. We then analyze phatic processes in elderly people's responses to a scripted how are you? opening in interviews about their medical experiences. Discourse analyses of phatic communion can raise important issues for gerontological and medical research. (Phatic communion, small talk, greetings, elderly talk, medical talk, preference structure)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 207 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abercrombie, D. (1956). Problems and principles. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Basso, K. (1970). To give up on words: Silence in the Western Apache culture. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 26(3):213–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauman, R. (1983). Let your words be few: Symbolism of speaking and silence among seventeenth-century Quakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beinstein, J. (1975). Small talk as social gesture. Journal of Communication 25:147–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, C. R., & Bradac, J. S. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal relationships. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Brown, J., & Rogers, E. (1991). Openness, uncertainty, and intimacy: An epistemological reformulation. In Coupland, N., Giles, H., & Wiemann, J. (eds.), “Miscommunication” and problematic talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 146–65.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N. (ed.), Questions and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 56–289.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheepen, C. (1988). The predictability of informal conversation. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1990). Language and later life. In Giles, H. & Robinson, W. P. (eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology. Chichester: Wiley. 451–70.Google Scholar
Coupland, N., Coupland, J., & Giles, H. (1989). Telling age in later life: Identity and face implications. Text 9(2): 129–51.Google Scholar
Coupland, N., Coupland, J., & Giles, H. (1991) Language, society, and the elderly: Discourse, identity, and ageing. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coupland, N., Coupland, J., Giles, H., Henwood, K., & Wiemann, J. (1988). Elderly selfdisclosure: Interactional and intergroup issues. Language and Communication 8(2): 109–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, N., Giles, H., & Wiemann, J. (eds.). (1991). “Miscommunication” and problematic talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Davies, A. (1988). Talking in silence: Ministry in Quaker meetings. In Coupland, N. (ed.), Styles of discourse. London: Croom Helm (Routledge). 105–37.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. P. (1984). Language as a resource. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 7(1):17–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1981). The structure and use of politeness formulas. In Coulmas, F. (ed.), Conversational routine. The Hague: Mouton. 21–35.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1972). Verbal and bodily rituals of greeting and parting. In Fontaine, J. S. La (ed.), The interpretation of ritual. London: Tavistock. 1–38.Google Scholar
Fisher, S. (1991). A discourse of the social: Medical talk/power talk/oppositional talk? Discourse and Society 2(2):157–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, S., & Croce, S. B. (1990). Accounting practices in medical interviews. Language in Society 19(2):225–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland, N. (eds.). (1991). Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Wiemann, J. (eds.). (1990). Communication, health, and the elderly. Proceedings of Fulbright Colloquium 1988. Manchester: University of Manchester Press.Google Scholar
Gluckman, M. (1963). Gossip and scandal. Current Anthropology 4(3):307–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics: Volume 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic. 41–58.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 299–345.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1980). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1968). The ethnography of speaking. In Fishman, J. A. (ed.), Readings in the sociology of language. Mouton: The Hague. 99–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 35–71.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T. (ed.), Style in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 350–77.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1980). On “trouble-premonitory” response to inquiry. Sociological Inquiry 50:153–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1984). On the organisation of laughter in talk about troubles. In Atkinson, J. & Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 346–69.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1985). On the interactional unpackaging of a “gloss.” Language in Society 14:435–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. (1990). Gossip: Notes on women's oral culture. In Cameron, D. (ed.), The feminist critique of language: A reader. London: Routledge. 242–50.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laver, J. (1974). Communicative functions of phatic communion. Work in Progress (University of Edinburgh, Scotland) 7:1–17.Google Scholar
Laver, J. (1975). Communicative functions of phatic communion. In Kendon, A., Harris, R. M., & Key, M. R. (eds.), The organization of behavior in face-to-face interaction. The Hague: Mouton. 215–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, J. (1981). Linguistic routines and politeness in greeting and parting. In Coulmas, F. (ed.), Conversational routine. The Hague: Mouton. 289–304.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1974). Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. Supplement to Ogden, C. K. & Richards, I. A., The meaning of meaning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 146–52.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1972). Phatic communion. In Laver, J. & Hutcheson, S. (eds.), Communication in face-to-face interaction. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 146–52.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. (1979). Psycho-ostensive expressions in Yiddish. Philadelphia: ISHI.Google Scholar
Mills, J. (1989). Woman words. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Osman, S. (1983–1984). A-Z of feminism. Spare Rib. London.Google Scholar
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1986). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Quint, J. C. (1965). Institutionalized practices of information control. Psychiatry 28:119–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ragan, S. L. (1991). Verbal play and multiple goals in the gynecological exam interaction. In Tracy, K. & Coupland, N. (eds.), Multiple goals in discourse. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 67–84.Google Scholar
Robinson, W. P. (1972). Language and social behaviour. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1975). Everyone has to lie. In Sanches, M. & Blount, B. G. (eds.), Sociocultural dimensions of language use. New York: Academic. 57–80.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Button, G. & Lee, J. R. E. (eds.), Talk and social organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies 9:111–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, K. R. (1987). Topic selection in phatic communion. Multilingua 6(3):247–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, K. R. (1988). Small talk: Analysing phatic discourse. Marburg: Hitzeroth.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. (1985). The machine stops: Silence in the metaphor of malfunction. In Tannen, D. & Saville-Troike, M. (eds.), Perspectives on silence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 21–30.Google Scholar
Shotter, J. (1984). Social accountability and selfhood. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Tannen, D., & Öztek, P. C. (1981). Health to our mouths: Formulaic expressions in Turkish and Greek. In Coulmas, F. (ed.), Conversational routine. The Hague: Mouton. 37–54.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. P., Bull, P., & Roger, D. (1982). Conversational exchange analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 1(2):141–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracy, K. (ed.). (1991). Understanding face-to-face interaction: Issues linking goals and discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Tracy, K., & Coupland, N. (eds.). (1991). Multiple goals in discourse. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Turner, G. (1973). Stylistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
West, C., & Frankel, R. M., (1991). Miscommunication in medicine. In Coupland, N., Giles, H., & Wiemann, J. (eds.), “Miscommunication” and problematic talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 166–94.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1981). Invitations, compliments, and the competence of the native speaker. International Journal of Psycholinguistics 8:7–22.Google Scholar