Cover not available
Part of
Dialogic Ethics
Edited by Ronald C. Arnett and François Cooren
[Dialogue Studies 30] 2018
► pp. 45–76

Proposal for a typology of listening markers and listening request markers

The case of a public consultation

Public hearings allow individuals to disseminate their opinions but also to hear the views of others. While citizens find themselves invested with more opportunity to engage in public conversation, are they in possession of the tools to effectively accomplish their objective? Listening stands out as one of these under-considered tools. This study focuses on “listening” in a public consultation process and seeks to understand its mechanisms. By unpacking the listening process, it proposes a typology of signs indicating listening, and solicitations to listen and reveals that ‘attentive listening’ can turn into ‘engaged listening’ as listening priorities are negotiated and established. Engaged listening favours sharing authority and authorship among stakeholders.
Keywords: public consultation, listening, typology, negotiation
Article outline
  • 1.Literature review
  • 2.The hearing/listening/hearing span
  • 3.Fieldwork
  • 4.Designing a typology
  • 5.Data analysis
    • 5.1Listening markers
      • 5.1.1Attentive listening markers
        • 5.1.1.1The gaze
        • 5.1.1.2Reading the participant’s PowerPoint or paper presentation while the participant is pronouncing her speech
        • 5.1.1.3Note-taking as listening markers
        • 5.1.1.4Nodding and “hmm”
        • 5.1.1.5Emotional reactions
        • 5.1.1.6Imposed listening
        • 5.1.1.7Markers of reiteration
      • 5.1.2Involved listening markers
        • 5.1.2.1Listening marker testifying support to the speaker
        • 5.1.2.2Involved listening markers of directive or maieutic types: Listening to speech (Lipari 2014)
        • 5.1.2.3Interpretive-involved listening markers (IILM)
      • 5.1.3Poor and non-listening markers
        • 5.1.3.1Poor listening
        • 5.1.3.2Non-Listening
    • 5.2Listening requests
      • 5.2.1Listening solicitation markers
        • 5.2.1.1The gaze
        • 5.2.1.2Acknowledging effort and deference
      • 5.2.2Markers of inducing to listen
        • 5.2.2.1The speaker’s laughter and humor
        • 5.2.2.2Strategy and influence
      • 5.2.3Injunctions to listen
  • 6.Discussion
  • References
Published online: 14 June 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.30.03hig
References (30)
References
Bavelas, J. B., L. Coates, and T. Johnson. 2000. “Listeners as Co-Narrators.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (6): 941–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bavelas, Janet B., Linda Coates, and Trudy Johnson. 2002. “Listener Responses as a Collaborative Process: The Role of Eye Gaze.” Journal of Communication 52 (September): 566–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bodie, Graham D., Debra Worthington, Margarete Imhof, and Lynn O. Cooper. 2008. “What Would a Unified Field of Listening Look Like? A Proposal Linking Past Perspectives and Future Endeavors.” International Journal of Listening 22 (2): DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cobb, Sara, and Janet Rifkin. 1991. “Practice and Paradox : Deconstructing Neutrality in Mediation.” Law & Social Inquiry Social Inquiry 16 (1): 35–62.Google Scholar
Corradi Fiumara, Gemma. 1990. The Other Side of Language: A Philosophy of Listening. Routledge.Google Scholar
Dobson, Andrew. 2012. “Listening: The New Democratic Deficit.” Political Studies 60 (4): 843–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaffiot, F. 1934. “Dictionnaire Latin-Français.” Dictionnaire Latin-Français. Hachette.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press ; Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Rituals. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Halone, Kelby K., and Loretta L. Pecchioni. 2001. “Relational Listening: A Grounded Theoretical Model.” Communication Reports 14 (September 2013): 59–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Husband, Charles. 2009. “Between Listening and Understanding.” Continuum 23 (4): 441–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Bruce. 1994. “Listening Authetically: A Heideggerian Perspective on Interpersonal Communication.” In Interpretive Approaches to Interpersonal Communication: The Aftermath of Counterinsurgency in Guatemala, edited by Kathryn Carter and Mick Presnell. SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott. 2002. “Maintaining Neutrality in Dispute Mediation: Managing Disagreement While Managing Not to Disagree.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (10–11): 1403–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Scott, and Mark Aakhus. 2002. “What Mediators Do with Words Implementing Three Models of Rational Discussion in Dispute Mediation.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20 (4): 177–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, edited by Gene Lerner, 302. John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, David Michael. 1989. The Listening Self: Personal Growth, Social Change and the Closure of Metaphysics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lipari, Lisbeth. 2014. Listening, Thinking, Being : Toward an Ethics of Attunement. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Pecchioni, Loretta L., and Kelby K. Halone. 2000. “Relational Listening II: Form & Variation across Social and Personal Relationships.” International Journal of Listening 14 (1): 69–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Bruce. 1999. “Reformulating Dispute Narratives through Active Listening.” Mediation Quarterly 17 (2): 161–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita, and B. J. Fehr. 2011. “Conversation Analysis: An Approach to the Analysis of Social Interaction.” In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, edited by Teun A. Van Dijk, 432. Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Henry, Gail Jefferson, and Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1995. Lectures On Conversation. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. “Repair After Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 97 (5): 1295–1345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel a., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53 (2): 361–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J., and T. Stivers. 2012. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Edited by Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverman, David. 1998. Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, John. 1983. “Interpretive Listening: An Alternative to Empathy.” Communication Education 32 (4): 379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2008. “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation during Storytelling: When Nodding Is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 41 (1): 31–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thill, Cate. 2009. “Courageous Listening, Responsibility for the Other and the Northern Territory Intervention.” Continuum 23 (4): 537–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watson, Kittie W., Larry L. Barker, and James B. Weaver. 1995. “The Listening Styles Profile (LSP-16): Development and Validation of an Instrument to Assess Four Listening Styles.” International Journal of Listening 9 (1): 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Cooren, François, Boris H. J. M. Brummans & Lise Higham
2023. “You’re putting words in my mouth!”: Interaction as mutual ventriloquation. Communication Research and Practice 9:1 ► pp. 44 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.