A matter of politeness? A contrastive study of phatic talk in teenage conversation

Anna-Brita Stenström and Annette Myre Jørgensen

Abstract

This corpus-based article explores London and Madrid teenagers’ use of phatic expressions as a politeness device in their everyday conversations. The starting-point for the study is Leech’s ‘Phatic Maxim’, which he suggests as a supplement to the four maxims making up Grice’s Cooperative Principle. The purport of the maxim is to avoid silence by keeping talking, which may involve anything from loose formulaic talk to connectors and the use of taboo words, all of which are phatic devices with a strong bonding effect. The teenage talk studied here is largely void of the formulaic expressions that characterize conversational openings and closings in adult speakers’ casual encounters. Both groups are frequent users of turn-final appealers which trigger turn-initial uptakes and of reaction signals realized by interjections and taboo words, all with a strongly bonding effect. Boys in particular are not only allowed but even expected to use taboo language as a sign of camaraderie and a means to reinforce the phatic strength of an exchange. In both corpora, there is ample use of fillers that help the speaker to hold the turn, and hedges, which often act as fillers in addition to helping the speaker avoid self-commitment. And whereas the Spanish teenagers use certain vocatives as a purely conversational resource to establish and maintain contact, the English teenagers insert ‘unsolicited’ minimal feedback signals (for example, realized by mhm or mm) which encourage the current speaker to go on speaking.

Keywords:
Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Aitchison, Jean
(1996) The seeds of speech. Language origin and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Briz, Antonio
(1993) Los conectores pragmáticos en la conversación coloquial (II): Su papel metadiscursivo. Español Actual: Universidad de Valencia, pp. 39-56.Google Scholar
Cheepen, Christine
(1988) The Predictability of Informal Conversation. London and New York: Pinter Publishers.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H
(1996)  Using Language Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref
Coates, Jennifer
(ed) (1998) Language and gender. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cortés, Luis
(1991) Sobre conectores, expletivos y muletillas en el español hablado. Málaga: Editorial Librería Ágora.Google Scholar
Crystal, David
(1995) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
García Vizcaíno, María José, and Miguel A. Martínez-Cabeza
(2005) The pragmatiics of well and bueno in English and Spanish. Intercultural Pragmatics 2-1: 69-92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbon, Dafydd
(1997) Oh er, phatic focus. Unpublished talk. University of Bielefeld.Google Scholar
González, Montserrat
(2004) Pragmatic Markers in Oral Narrative. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grundy, Peter
(1995) Doing Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Fine, Gary Alan
(1981) Rude words. Insults and narration in preadolescent obscene talk. Maledicta V: 51-68.Google Scholar
Fuentes Rodríguez, Catalina
(1990) Algunos operadores de función fatica. Habla de Sevilla y hablas americanas. Sociolingüística andaluza 5: 137-170.Google Scholar
(1993) Comportamiento discursivo de bueno, bien, pues bien. Estudios de Lingüistica 9. Universidad de Alicante, pp. 205-221.
Holmes, Janet
(1986) Functions of you know in women’s and men’s speech. Language in Society 15:1. 1- 22. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Roman
(1960) Linguistics and poetics. In T.A. Sebeok (ed), Style in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Langford, David
(1994) Analysing Talk. London: Macmillan.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laver, John
(1975) Communicative functions of phatic communion. In A. Kendon et al.. (eds), The Organization of Behaviour in Face-to-Face Communication. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
(1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
(1977) Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw
(1923) Phatic communion. In J. Laver and S. Hutcheson (eds), Communication in Face to Face Interaction. Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Mateo, José, and Francisco Yus
(2000) Insults: A relevance-theoretic taxonomical approach to their translation. International Journal of Translation 12.1: 97-130.  TSBGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Michael, and Ronald Carter
(1993) Language as Discourse. Perspectives for Language Teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Senft, Gunter
(1995) Phatic communion. In J. Verschueren, J-O. Östman, J. Blommaert and C. Bulcaen (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. (loose-leaf contribution). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita
(1994) An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
(2006) Taboo words in teenage talk: London and Madrid girls’ conversations compared. Spanish in Context 3: 115-138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef
(1999) Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Viagara Tauste, Ana María
(1990) Aspectos del español hablado. Aportaciones al estudio del español coloquial. Madrid: Sociedad General Española de Librería, S.A.Google Scholar
(1990) La función fática del lenguaje. In Actas del Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística. XX Aniversario. Madrid: Gredos, pp. 1088-1097.Google Scholar
Zegarac, Vladimir
(1998) What is phatic communication? In V. Rouchota and A. Jucker. Current Issues in Relevance Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 327-361. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zegarac, Vladimir, and Billy Clark
(1999) Phatic communication and relevance theory: A reply to Ward & Horn. Journal of Linguistics 35: 565-577. CrossrefGoogle Scholar