conversational theory ben franks. accommodation theory part one

Conversational TheoryBen Franks

Accommodation TheoryPart One

From a research study summary cited to Giles

and Wiemann (1987) & Street and Giles (1982) it stated that:

“When we talk with other people, we will tend to subconsciously change our style of speech (accent, rate, types of words, etc.) towards the style used by the listener. We also tend to match non-verbal behaviours.”

In Short

The Summary goes on to say: “The Accommodation theory signals agreement and liking. It should create greater rapport and them such that they approve of us more.”

However…“The reverse also happens: people deliberately assert their identity by speaking and acting differently from the other person.”

Reference: http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/communication_accomodation.htm

Furthermore…

Grice’s Maxims & MorePart Two

What is meant by the term “maxim”?It is a saying that is widely accepted by its own merits in a literal denotation sense.

However Conversational Maxims are the widely accepted “necessities” to a good conversation as written by

English language theorist Paul Grice.

DEFINITIONS ACCORDING TO WEB DEF ON GOOGLE.CO.UK

First things first…

Paul Grice, English Language philosopher, noted the following 4 maxims of conversation:Relevance:“speakers' contributions should relate clearly to the purpose of the exchange”

Quality“speakers should be truthful and not make statements without evidence”

Quantity“a contribution should be as informative as is required for the conversation to proceed; neither too much nor too little”

Manner“speakers' contributions should be perspicuous: clear, orderly and brief, avoiding obscurity and ambiguity”

A Little Run-down of Grice’s Maxims

Acco

rdin

g to

htt

p://

ww

w.in

gilis

h.co

m/g

ricea

n_m

axim

s_an

d_po

liten

ess.

htm

According to www.sil.org ‘s Linguistics Glossary, Grice’s theory – written down in 1975 – states that:

“participants expect that each will make a conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange.”

It’s a Matter of Principle

Flouting the MaximsPart Three

Grice found it interesting when people ignored the maxims of conversation and wrote about it under the term: “Flouting the Maxims”For Example:

Michael Caine: Fancy a game of tennis?Morgan Freeman: It’s raining.

This violates the maxim of relevance on the surface because it indirectly answers the question.

Maxims? Ha!

Goffman: Face & PolitenessPart Four

Erving Goffman wrote in 1963 about a term he named “face”. It stated:FACE: in reference to how people present themselves in social situations and that our entire reality is constructed through our social interactions

Meaning that when presented with the term ‘politeness’ we are said to be “preventing” or “saving face” and summarises that:“Face is a mask that changes depending on the audience and the social interaction”

Back in the 60s…

ACCORDING TO MILLS, 2003. Published to http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Politeness_theory

…Which is similar to the Accommodation theory.

Positive & Negative PolitenessPart Five

Brown and Levison, writing in 1987, criticised and enhanced Goffman’s 1960s research by summarising that:

Positive Face was: “the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others OR the positive consistent self-image or 'personality’ by interactants.”

Negative Face was: “the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction; the freedom of action and freedom from imposition”

Face: it works both ways

Robin Lakoff: Politeness PrinciplePart Six

Robin Lakoff wrote in 1973 of the Politeness Principle and divided it into a trilogy of Maxims

• don’t impose• give options• make your receiver feel good

…explanation

Lakoff’s Maxims

Robin Lakoff’s first maxim – don’t impose – can be explained in this example:

‘I am sorry to bother you, but…’There is a clear apology for imposing which shows the participant has acknowledged the first maxim of the Politeness Principle.

Don’t Impose… please

Robin Lakoff’s second maxim – give options – can be explained in this example:

‘I wonder if you could possibly…’There is a clear option for acceptance or refusal which shows the participant has acknowledged the second maxim of the Politeness Principle.

Give options… would you mind?

Robin Lakoff’s third maxim – make your receiver feel good – can be explained in this example:

Beyoncé: “Do I look big in this?”Borat: “No, it suits you.”OR[To] New friend: “You are great with people.”

Make your receiver feel good

Gender & Conversational BehaviourPart Seven

Fishman led a piece of research in the 1970s, joining up with Zimmerman and West on a couple of occasions, into the difference between genders during conversation.It found that in conversation, males tended to be more direct and subconsciously ignore the maxims of the politeness principle in favour of the maxims of the conversation principle, valuing getting “the point across” more so. Whereas females tended to be more indirect, valuing the politeness principle’s maxims and not worrying so much about conveying intended point.

Fishman, Zimmerman & West walk into a bar…

According to Jennifer Coates in: Language & Gender

Thank youfor listening!

This Presentation Was Sponsored by:

www.pie-magazine.net | Your Net Generation eMag