english as language of diplomcay

8/11/2019 English as Language of Diplomcay

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/english-as-language-of-diplomcay 1/25

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

1 Theoretical background ................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Functions of spoken language ...................................................................................... 8

1.2 The act of communication ......................................................................................... 10

1.3 Communication in Diplomacy ................................................................................... 13

1.3.1 Speech as an act .................................................................................................. 14

1.3.2 Effects of the act of speech ................................................................................. 17

1.3.3 Role of the unsaid ............................................................................................... 18

1.4 The use of language in written diplomatic communication ....................................... 19

1.5 The use of language in spoken diplomatic communication ....................................... 19

2 Applying diplomatic communication to pedagogy ...................................................... 22

2.1 Politeness ................................................................................................................... 22

2.1.1 Features of politeness .......................................................................................... 22

2.1.2 Form of address .................................................................................................. 26

2.2 Speech Acts................................................................................................................ 28

2.2.1 Direct Speech Act ............................................................................................... 28

2.2.2 Indirect Speech Act ............................................................................................. 29

3 Results and discussion ........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Conclusion ..............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Resumé ....................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Bibliography ........................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.



7

1 Theoretical background

Tuka da se napise so 4-5 recenici sto ce se pisuva vo ova Glava 1 Theoretical

background.

We look into different issues of diplomatic language in its fundamental meaning -

that of a tongue. Usually, the first problem to deal with is identifying a common tongue.

Diplomats basically exceptionally find themselves in the particular situation to be able to

communicate in one language, familiar to all participants.

This could be done between, as an illustration, Germans and Austrians, or

Portuguese and Brazilians, or representatives of various Arab countries, or British and

Americans, etc. Not only are these types of circumstances uncommon, but very often there

is a significant distinction between the same language used in one country and another.

There are numerous ways to eliminate the problem of communication between

people that speak different mother tongues. Probably none of these methods will work

best. One solution, surely, is that one of the interlocutors talks the language of the other.

Difficulties can occur: the expertise in the foreign language may not be sufficient, one side

is making a concession and the other has an instant and considerable advantage, there are

potential political implications, it usually is difficult to apply in multilateral diplomacy, etc.

(Stanko, 2001)

A second possibility is that both sides use a third, neutral, language. A potential

problem may be that neither side possesses full linguistic knowledge and control, leading

to possible bad misunderstandings. Nevertheless, this method is frequently applied in

international practice because of its political advantages. (Stanko, 2001)

A third formula, using interpreters, is also very widely used, particularly in

multilateral diplomacy or for negotiations at a very high political level - not only for

reasons of equity, but because politicians and statesmen often do not speak foreign

languages. This method also has disadvantages: it is time consuming, costly, and

sometimes inadequate or straightforwardly incorrect (even if the translator has a good

knowledge of both languages, he/she may not be familiar with the particular subject which

can be extremely specific - from the protection of the ozone layer to the homologisation of



8

sports records; it was not without reason that the slogan traduttore-traditore, translator =

traitor, could be found in mediaeval Italy) (Stanko, 2001)

Finally, there is the possibility of using one international synthetic, artificial

language, such as Esperanto “this solution would have many advantages, but unfortunately

is not likely to be implemented soon, mostly because of the opposition of factors that

dominate in the international political – and therefore also cultural and linguistic - scene.”

(Stanko, 2001, s. 17)

1.1 Functions of spoken language

Tuka treba da se napise 2-3 recenici …. za da mozeme da pokazeme na moznosta za

koristenje na diplomatskiot jazik vo pedagogijata , potrebno e na pocetok dase zapoznaeme

so funkciite na govorniot jazik.

Language is a tool that distinguishes us from animals. It is a “medium by which

speakers of the language communicate their thoughts and feelings to others” (Baugh,

Cable, 2003, p.1). Language is a tool people use to do their work, to exchange information

with each other, to study and understand different areas, such as, science, philosophy,

literature or poetry.

“We have no hard evidence of the origins of language in prehistoric communities,

but it seems reasonable to assume that speech preceded writing” (Cook, 1999, p. 59).

It can be easily noticed when children first learn to speak then they learn to write.

Children intuitively try to communicate and repeat the sounds they hear, whereas they have

to be taught to write.

Namely, spoken discourse is used primarily because it is taught first and is

transmitted by sounds. Spoken communication requires “fast, almost instantaneous

production and understanding” (Leech, Svartvik, 2002, p. 11).“There is no going back and changing or restructuring our words as there is in

writing; there is often no time to pause and think” and it is caused by the fact that it is

unplanned and unprepared (Cook, 1999, p.115). For that reason, the speaker has to

improvise.

However, there are some exceptions in spoken discourse that are “planned in

advance or structured by custom and rule” (Cook, 1999, p. 115), such as “lessons, lectures,

interviews and trials” (Cook 1999, p. 50) which are examples of prepared spoken

discourse.



9

“There is often no time to pause and think, and while we are talking or listening, we

cannot stand back and view the discourse in spatial or diagrammatic terms” (Cook, 1999,

p. 115).

The spoken language is said to be the language in action and normally depends on

the context which can be discovered from what the speakers are talking about. According

to Geaney (1996, p.19) it is the language of “public ritual”... Such language is “a powerful

means of maintaining social distance and of impersonalizing relationships” which is

considered to be the main advantage of spoken discourse as it is important for integration

into a social group and interaction and there is always a possibility to ask for

“clarification“ (Dontcheva- Navrátilová, 2005, p. 66), thus it is “reciprocal” (Cook, 1999, p.

116). Consequently, the spoken language is considered to be less formal.

According to Cook (1999, p. 8), language is not only a formal system, but it has to

be examined under “a wider social and psychological context”. Some of the factors which

decide which words we choose are the particular situation, the writer‟s own individual

language, if the speakers personally know each other or not (those who are more familiar

are more open to each other), the social status, environment, culture, etc.

The choice of language influences a particular situation as well. Namely, a

particular situation is perceived by both the speaker and the hearer. This fact affects how

language can be seen from the perspective of language variation. ”There are two main

classes of language variations: according to the user and the use. Language can differ

according to the user, their personal characteristics, which consequently can affect the

variety of language used. Additionally, speech may change as certain personal

characteristic reflected in discourse change: e.g. social-class membership.” (Leech,

Deuchar, Hoogenraad, 1982, p.7).

What we also need to be aware of is the background of this tool – language is

strongly influenced by economic, political or social forces everyday and we certainly need

to take this aspect into account. The history of the language is closely related to the history

of human beings who know the rules of language use.

According to Baugh, Cable (2003, p.1), “the language of a powerful nation will

acquire higher importance as a direct reflection of political, economic, technological and

military strength. In other words, for example, the arts and sciences expressed in that

language will have advantages, even the opportunity to propagate. Moreover, spreading

these pieces of art will have a positive effect on the prestige of that language. “



10

The written above shows that language and society are subject to certain rules –

interrelationships.

1.2 The act of communication

Kako mnogu vazen del od razbiranjeto megju lugjeto e samiot act of communication, kojste e uste eden od elementite koi ce ni pomognat podobro da go svatime diplomatskiot

jazik a isto taka I moznostite za negovo koristenje vo pedaggijata.

Nowadays, language is not only a symbol of humanity – it develops very quickly

and adapts carefully. The language bears the information and expresses the mood of the

speaker. What is really exceptional about language is the fact that it makes it possible for

people to create, establish and maintain human relationships among more people. When

people make conversation they find out everything about the others, without being aware

of that.

However, “even conversation has its rules - improper pause between words,

incorrect usage of an intonation or simple misunderstanding of certain expressions could

lead to embarrassing events in the spoken language.” (Crystal, 1987, p.116). It is important

to point out that these rules should be taken into consideration in occasions such as

applying for a job or at a company meeting, because there would be great consequences for

the speaker.

Conversation (or communication) “can be considered as a personal process that

involves the transfer of information and also involves some behavioral input.

Communication is something people do. It does not exist without people taking some form

of action. It has all to do with the relationship between people.” (Ludlow, Panton, 1992,

p.2).

According to Leech, Deuchar, Hoogenraad (1982, p. 150), domain has to do with

how language varies according to the activity in which it plays a part which is labeled as

“The act of communication”. The addresser in it has to encode the intended message in

contrast to the addressee whose aim is to decode the message in order to react in the

expected way.

In order to code the message, the participants consider the following components of

the act of communication.



11

The addresser and the addressee stand for the participants in the act of

communication. Their relationship determines the possible meanings they choose to

exchange and the language used.

“The context is the reality to which the addresser and the addressee may refer to.

There are three varieties of context: verbal, situational and pragmatic .” (Dontcheva-

Navrátilová, 2005, p. 13).

Verbal context stands on the fact that the speeches of the other participants, the

preceding and the following parts of a written text also have an influence on the language

used and the choice of possible meanings they may exchange in the act of communication.

Situational context refers to the particular situation in which the participants occur.

Pragmatic context depends on the background knowledge, common experience, and

similar cultural background.

The message is considered on the basis of choice of form and content.

The contact during the interaction is realized both through physical channel and

psychological connection.

Knowing the code is the „key‟ to encode and decode a particular message.

Tannen (2003, p. 4-5) describes “a perfectly tuned conversation as a vision of

sanity – a ratification of one‟s way of being human and one‟s place in the world”. When

we are talking to a person, it is especially important for them to understand the meaning of

the words we utter and the signals of our body language. If someone cannot realize these

conditions, their psychological well-being suffers and their competence and self-

confidence are in doubt.

“Language is a social phenomenon which is connected with values of the society

that it is used in and with the whole society structure. In short, every aspect of the language

is evaluated differently – accents or dialects of the language, for example, carry a different

meaning” (Trudgill, 1974, p.20).

Differences in some languages may result in different perceptions of the world. We

realize that the Slovak speaker perceives the world differently than the English speaker.

Furthermore, in case of translation, if it is not well made, it can change the meaning of a

whole sentence or structure. As a result, sometimes it is very hard to understand the

speaker from other nation, because even if the participants in the particular conversation

are able to work with the second language, they cannot reveal completely the social

environment of this language.



12

This situation is very common when a man meets a woman – “they could probably

understand each other without any problem, but the way they think and use the language

will differ. They are affected by age, emotions, social status and processes in the brain and

all these facts will change the conversation significantly “ (Jesenská, 2010, p.44)

There are several tips how to avoid barriers in communication, but before we do

that, it is very important to understand the origin of these barriers.

Ludlow, Panton (1992, p. 9) claim, that “in order to communicate well we need to

know ourselves, our frames of reference and limitations. We also need to be able to assess

other people. Only then can we hope to find the best ways in which to communicate

effectively with others.”

Ludlow and Panton (1992, p.9) also give some of the reasons why we do not assess

other people well:

“We assume that they are going to behave the same way in every situation – the

communication then lacks enthusiasm and proves to be useless.

We try too hard to put everyone into consistent categories – this stereotyping does

not allow us to be objective during the conversation.

We are too influenced by first impressions – the appearance of the person should

not be an obstacle in the conversation.

We are positively influenced where we have common characteristics with other

people, i.e. same school, same functions, etc., … - we are, unconsciously, more

open when being in the conversation with the people of the same “level.

We are too influenced by apparent negative points, i.e. if someone is not very

good at short-term decision making we might think that he will probably be not a

very good long-term decision maker either.

We make constant errors because of our own limited frames of reference and self-

concepts – the modesty is the best recipe in achieving a success in a conversation.

We are not sufficiently interested in, or pay enough attention to other people –

common “mistake” in many conversations; we rather think about more pleasant

things than to listen to someone whose speech does not interest us” (Ludlow and

Panton, 1992, p.9).

The process of communication that includes sending, receiving, understanding

(perceived meaning) and accepting (using feedback) can be affected by these problems and

considerable troubles may arise. The seven points listed above also apply to the



13

conversation of men and women, but they do not make a complete list of advice for

successful communication.

1.3 Communication in Diplomacy

Komunikacijata vo diplomatijata e mnogu vazen del od diplomatskiot protokol, a

sto e mnogu vazno za problematikata koja sto nie ja proucuvame, ima za cel izbegnuvanje

na konflikti vo komunikacijata, sto kako kraen rezultat doveduva do megjusebno razbiranje

na stranite koi ucestvuvaat vo procesot na komunikacija. Samiot nacin na komuniciranje

vo diplmomatijata e dobar primer koj sto so mali modifikacii moze da se iskoristi I vo

pedagogijata.

What can be found if we try to understand communication in terms of international

relations, apart from language and communication sciences? According to Cohen (1997, p.

9) it can be perceived as a process of negotiation “between states seeking to arrive at a

mutually acceptable outcome on some issue or issues of shared concern.”

How can we define the communication in the area of diplomacy? A definition in a

dictionary for diplomats states: “Communication among diplomats is a two-way street: one

cannot expect to obtain much information unless one is able and willing to convey

information” (Gruber, 1983, in Freeman, 1997, p. 49).

The term "language in diplomacy" obviously can be interpreted in several ways.

First, as tongue ("mother" tongue or an acquired one), the speech "used by one nation,

tribe, or other similar large group of people"; in this sense we can say, for example, that

French used to be the predominant diplomatic language in the first half of the 20th century.

Second, as a special way of expressing the subtle needs of the diplomatic

profession; in this way it can be said, for example, that the delegate of such-and-such a

country spoke of the given subject in totally non-diplomatic language. “Also, the term can

refer to the particular form, style, manner or tone of expression; such as the minister

formulated his conditions in unusually strong language. It may mean as well the verbal or

non-verbal expression of thoughts or feelings: sending the gunships is a language that

everybody understands” (Stanko, 2001, p. 17).

Speech Act theory has been elaborated a lot, but here are several points that point

out the main concept of it and why this approach is important and relevant to democracy.

Basically, this approach is important for two reasons:



14

One of the reasons is concerned with the nature of language, and the other with the

fact how much context is important when interpreting intentions. The first thing Speech

Act theory points out is the misleading popular dichotomy views of words as contra-

distinct from actions. This views do not reflect the nature of language for words

themselves have not only the power to cause actions, but utterances as well are a certain

form of action. Consequently to this view, as Tully observes, the pen is not a rival to the

sword, but the pen can be a mighty sword.

The influential political historian Quentin Skinner claims, “Speech Act analysis is

not just another piece of philosophical jargon – the terminology described here points to a

fact about language: that anyone issuing a serious utterance will always be doing

something as well as saying something, and doing it in virtue of saying what is said.”

(Skinner, 2002, p. 106).

For that reason, illocutionary acts are best understood as an aspect of language we

all use any time we make serious utterances, and we need to detect and understand them if

we want to understand the meaning of other utterances as well.

The second point expresses the importance of the context of utterances at a much

wider cultural level in understanding the intentions of others in the communication.

There are numerous aspects of an effective communication in diplomacy. This can

be achieved by sharing the language used in a certain context at a specific time, by

interacting, by building a dialogue or multilogue, by showing our attitudes, emotions, and

feelings in a friendly or unfriendly manner, by exploiting the nonverbal signals such as

body language, facial expressions, etc., by either emphasizing the content of what is said or

its form, or more tipically the communcation can be done by integrating forms and

meanings in contexts which can have different effects on the other participants.

“In the process of communcation diplomats can choose whether they use more

explicit or implicit speech. They can be restricted, they can avoid straightforward

comments using vague language. In different professional fields, people can communicate

using not only words but also terms, as in the area of International Relations – specific

terms used when we talk about anti-globalisation, inhuman labour conditions, risky

technology, abject property, etc.” (Varyrynen, 2000, p. 3).

1.3.1 Speech as an act

Vo sledniot chapter ke se zamerame na Speech act theory a na nacinite za izbegnuvanje nakonflikti vo komunikacijata koi sto mozat da se iskoristat I vo pedagoskiot proces.



15

The Speech Act theory holds its key point that words are deeds as well. When we

utter something, at the same time we are making an action of a certain kind, deliberately

and voluntarily engaging in a particular behaviour. The intention of the speaker has a

central role in Speech Act theory as it produces the voluntary speech act in the

communication. Consequently, this approach to language investigates the use of words and

their meanings, and identifies the intentions of the speakers from the context of their

utterances.

Communication barriers are definitely one of the biggest problems of conversation.

Everyone is producing them and they affect everyone without exception. However, every

participant of the conversation can do something in order to make communication easier,

without causing any disruptions or misunderstandings.

One way to reduce the effects caused by barriers is to be very cautious during the

communication process and to be fully aware of the „message‟ of the conversation.

Ludlow, Panton (1992) are describing the process of thinking of sender, receiver and what

should they be both aware of.

“The sender should always ask himself/herself „To whom should the message go?‟

He/she has to realize to whom is he/she speaking to and, more importantly „Why?‟ What

are his/her motives and how should he/she choose the words during the communication.

The sender must also know what he/she wants to communicate (that means, he/she

has to be clear about the topic). He/she has to choose appropriate time for his/her reception

and language that is understandable for the receiver.

Last thing is to choose a location which will not interfere with the reception,

understanding and acceptance of the message (home?, privately?, in a group?).” (Ludlow,

Panton, 1992, p.12).

“At the same time, the receiver also has several options how to make the

communication easier. He/she should be fully attentive to sender and listen carefully to the

message that has been sent. If he/she does not understand the message, he/she should not

be afraid to ask for clarification or repetition where necessary.” (Ludlow, Panton, 1992,

p.12).

Finally, both participants in conversation, the sender and the receiver should realize

that misunderstandings cannot be avoided completely and for this reason they should be

alert all the time. They also have to “listen to each other carefully, test their understanding



16

of the message and share their opinions, feelings and perceptions generated by the

message.” (Ludlow , Panton, 1992, p.12-14).

Normally, in everyday situations we are not aware of these communication barriers

and we do not try to eliminate them. If this is the case, the tips given above should be

typical examples of ways how to solve these problems and become better listeners and

speakers. Women are considered to be much better listeners and even better speakers for

that matter, for their soft language and fluency and they more willingly accept solutions

that help to remove communication barriers.

Contrary to women, men are said not to have that effort, for the fact that they are

either too proud or too self-confident to do something about this issue. Some authors claim

that the ability to solve problems in communication depends on the will of the

speaker/listener and their personalities.

The communication between two people is not as easy and simple as it may seem.

The conversation has many features that decide whether it will be successful or not. The

study of barriers in communication should be taken very seriously, because there should

not be misunderstandings between native speakers.

From all the above stated, we can draw a conclusion that language is medium by

which speakers of the language communicate their thoughts and feelings to others.

The spoken language is considered to be the language in action and normally

depends on the context which can be identified from what the speakers are talking about. It

is said to be the language of “public ritual”…

According to psychologists, all representations of words are stored in a mental

dictionary called the mental lexicon. This lexicon contains all the information that we

know about a certain word such as its sounds, meanings or written appearance.

This lexicon must be huge, since it is estimated that an average adult knows

approximately 70,000 words.

Through language we get information and identify the mood of the speaker. The

fact that language makes it possible for people to create, establish and maintain human

relationships among each other is really exceptional. When people make conversation they

find out things about each other, without even being aware of that.

However, conversation also has its rules - improper pause between words, incorrect

usage of an intonation or simple misunderstanding of certain expressions could cause

embarrassing situations in spoken language.



17

1.3.2 Effects of the act of speech

Efektite na govorniot akt se del od Speech act theory .Na slednite strani ke napravime

pregled na locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts, koi sto se koristat ne samo vo

diplomatskiot jazik, tuku I vo sekojdnevniot govor , a nivnata primena se naogja i vo

pedagogijata, vo samiot process na komunikacija megju ucitelot I ucenikot.

According to Austin (1980, p. 5), “the most obvious forms of speech acts are

explicit performatives in which the uttering of the sentence is, or is part of, the doing of an

action.”

“To utter the sentence is not to describe what is being done (has been done or is yet

to be done), or to state that it is being done: it is to do it.” (Austin, 1980, p. 6).

One example of this is the sentence „I do take this woman to be my lawful wedded

wife‟, as part of the marriage ceremony. At this point Austin asks: Can saying this make it

happen? Is the act of marrying simply uttering a few words? We can see that words are

necessary but not sufficient, because other circumstances are also necessary, among which

those who grant authority to the speaker to utter something.

Utterances can also be regarded as actions, as in saying something we are

performing different acts, for example, acts of apologizing, warning, persuading,

threatening, etc. According to Speech Act theory in the process of making such utterances

the person is performing three types of acts simultaneously - locutionary, illocutionary and

perlocutionary. Here is how we define these acts:

“Locutionary acts: performing the act OF uttering something. Saying a sentence

with a particular sense and reference; traditionally understood as „meaning‟.

Illocutionary acts: the performance of an act IN uttering something. What one

intends to do when saying something, for example, informing, ordering, warning,

apologizing, etc.

Perlocutionary acts: what we cause or achieve BY uttering something. For

example, we can convince, persuade or deter. As Austin elaborates, normally, saying

something produces certain consequential effects on the feelings, thoughts, or actions of

the others persons and it may be done with the design, intention, or purpose of producing

them.” (Austin, 1980, p. 109)



18

Austin (1980, p. 110). wants us to make a clear difference between the

illocutionary and the perlocutionary act, since: “in saying something I was warning him‟ is

distinct from „by saying it I convinced him, or surprised him, or got him to stop.”

He also points out that we need to understand how the intended illocutionary force

„ought to have been taken‟, which he refers to as a process of „uptake‟. By gaining uptake

of the illocutionary force of a certain utterance we understand what the speaker was doing

in uttering it – what they intended when making the utterance. Skinner notes one important

distinction more – the one between illocutionary force and an illocutionary act. “This

means the first points to a resource of language and the other to the capacity of agents to

exploit the language in communication.” (Skinner, 2002, p. 109).

1.3.3 Role of the unsaid

Role of unsaid objasnuva kako vo samiot proces na komunikacija se koristat neverbalni

metodi za postignuvanje na celta, megjusebno razbiranje ili vo odredeni slucai

nametnuvanje na svoeto mislnje, svojot pogled na situacijata. Vo pedagogijata ovoj nacin

na komunikacija se primenuva vo sekkdnevnata komunikacija meggju ucitelot I ucenikot.

Not only by language and also by gestures, body language, smiles, frowns and

grimaces is man recognized from other species by his methods for communication. Some

people frequently speak with their face! Sometimes, no answer is an answer, or even a

smile, a frown, a sneer or merely turning one's back on the speaker is an effective way to

communicate. Even the tone of how something is said is declamatory. Still together with

all this sophistication in communication, language is frequently a cause for

misunderstanding and conflict.

According to Abu Jaber, (2001, p.22) “the selection of words or phrases, their

composition, indeed how these are rendered, is sometimes a communication within a

communication. The array of exactly how things are stated is wide in almost every

language and is much wider in some like Arabic which actually leaves much room for

choice. This eclecticism in many areas contains the essence of communication.”

Ambiguity, sometimes by choice, sometimes constructive, and yet sometimes intentionally

obfuscating and confusing is a characteristic of human beings.

Gestures among other creatures are straightforward, leaving little room for

misunderstanding though none may have been intended. Sometimes what is not said orcommunicated is just as devastating or eloquent. Just ponder the Western conspiracy of



19

silence regarding what Israel is doing in its disregard of international law and United

Nations resolutions in dealing with its conflict with the Palestinians. Diplomatically

speaking, such silence is infinitely more eloquent than words. According to an Arabic

saying, "If words are sometimes silver, silence is made of gold." (Abu Jaber, 2001, p.22)

1.4 The use of language in written diplomatic communication

Osnovite pravila na pisanata diplomatska komunikacija , vazat so mali

prilagoduvanja i vo sekojdnevnata komuniakacia. Razlikata e vo toa sto vo diplomatskata

komunikacia postojat odredeni protokolui I megjusebni dogovori megju stranite koi

komuniciraat, dodeka vo sekojdnevnata komunikacia, samiot proces na pisana

komunikacija se bazira na uctovost, razbiranje na siuacijata na sogovornikot, megjutoa ne

postojat nekoi striktni pravila koi bi opredelile sto moze a sto ne moze da se napise .

The use of language in written diplomatic communication is generally exactly

determined (mostly by bilateral agreement). In most cases, it is based on one of the

essential principles of modern international law - the principle of sovereign equality of

states. According to Stanko (2001, p.19) in use of this principle to the linguistic ground

there are several formulas - each implemented in a symmetric way:

a) “each side writes its communications (notes, letters, etc.) in its own language

(e.g., the Croatian Ministry in Zagreb, as well as the Croatian Embassy in Budapest, write

in Croatian, while the Hungarian Ministry and their Embassy in Zagreb write in

Hungarian);

b) each side writes in the language of the other side (opposite from practice a);

c) the correspondence in each country is conducted in the local language (e.g. both

sides in Zagreb correspond in Croatian, while in Budapest they do so inHungarian);

d) both sides use a third, mutually agreed, language - e.g., Russian, French or other.

Again, each of these formulas has its advantages, but also its deficiencies.”

1.5 The use of language in spoken diplomatic communication

Pravilata na diplomatskiot razgovren jazik, na prvo mesto nacinot na obracanje,

nacinot na predstavuvanje I vodenjeto na natamosniot tek na komunikacia, davaat dobri

nasoki za nacinot na koj treba da se vodi komunkacijata I vo pedagogijata, vo samiot prces

na komuniciranje megju ucitelot I ucenikot I obratno.



20

There are certain guidelines when we addressing to others. Different cultures can

have different proper forms of address. Here are a few general rules, always taking in

account the local customs:

The spirit of formality in dimplomatic circles suggests not addressing others by

their first names as quickly. Diplomatic representatives should use titles unless invited to

do otherwise. Socially, one can refer to a spouse by their first name or as "my husband," or

"my wife" rather than as "Mr./Mrs. Smith." When dealing with household employees

however, you should still refer to your spouse as "Mr./Mrs. Smith." (U.S. Department of

State, 2013, p. 2)

Ambassadors are addressed as Mr./Madam Ambassador or Ambassador Jones. In

case of special invitation or long frinedship one can address an ambassador by their first

name but again not when in public. In indirect address, one can refer to the ambassador as

“the ambassador”, addressing his/her spouse as “the ambassador and Mr./Mrs. Jones”, or in

case the ambassador‟s spouse is a woman who kept her maiden name after marriage, then

“the ambassador and his wife, Ms. Smith.”

In the United States, an ambassador can still be addressed as “Mr./Madam

Ambassador” after his/her retirement or after completing his/her duties in other countries.

In some French speaking countries, the ambassador‟s wife may be addressed as Madam

Ambassador. For that reason, in those countries, one can refer to a female ambassador by

her last name – Ambassador Jones, in order to avoid confusion and make sure that the

female ambassador is treated with due respect.

People ranked below the Ambassador are referred to as Mr., Ms., or Mrs., if we are

aware of their marital status.

Introductions are made in order to present people each other and exchange names

so that a conversation can start. Internationally used in fromal occasions is the traditional

phrase “Mrs. Smith, may I present Mr. Jones? When the occasion is not strictly formal we

can simply state the two names, “Mrs. Smith, Mr. Jones”. In such occasions it is perfectly

acceptable and encouraged to make personal introductions. Moreover, one can add

additional information about oneself and his/her role. For example, "Hello, I'm Jane Smith,

Vice Consul at the United States Embassy." In English, the accepted, formal response to

any introduction is, "How do you do?" Informally, a smile, "Hello," or, "It's nice to meet

you," are fine. (U.S. Department of State, 2013, p. 3)

In introductions, honour is given to the name spoken first. Normally, honour isgiven to those who are older, higher in rank, titled, with a professional status, or female.



21

However, women are introduced to ambassadors, heads of state, royalty, and dignitaries of

the church. Some additional information about the persons introduced can make the

introduction more natural and pleasant. This stimulates the following conversation.

If you do not recall someone‟s name, the most courteous way to approach is to

mention your name again. For instance, "Good evening, I'm Jim Smith. We met recently at

the ambassador's home. I'm pleased to see you again." It is very likely that the other person

will introduce himself/herself again. If we assume that the other person cannot recall your

name as well, this approach can save both participants of being potentially embarrased of

the situation.



22

2 Applying diplomatic communication to pedagogy

Diplomatic relations are not the only ones requiring careful consideration. Practical

and diplomatic application of the English language and its forms to communication between teacher and student is also very important. The primary goal is to monitor

principles of pedagogy as well as the politeness or Speech Acts. It means, diplomatic

communication consists of these principles and features and it is necessary to be familiar

with them.

2.1 Politeness

Politeness is an area of interactional pragmatics which attracts great interest

recently. It performs empirical studies which examine languages and language varieties

from around the world, both individually and cross-culturally.

Politeness e eden od osnovnite principi na diplomatskiot jazik , no isto taka mora

da se primenuva i vo pedagogijata.

“In the last decades, a large number of theoretical and empirical books and articles

dealing with linguistic politeness and the notion of face have been published. In most of

the studies, the politeness has been conceptualized especially as strategic conflict-

avoidance or as strategic construction of cooperative social interaction” (Eelen, 2001, p.

21).

Politeness is one of the basic socio-psychological ground rules for human behavior.

It plays an integral role in all human interaction - the hallmark of abiding by the Grecian

cooperative principle. Speaking politely is the unmarked way of speaking, as it tends to be

expected and passes unnoticed, while over-politeness or impoliteness tend to be noticed

(Escandell Vidal, 1996)

2.1.1 Features of politeness

Za da gi uvidime moznostite na primena na teorijata na Politeness vo pedagogijata , vo prv

red pobrlisku ce se zapoznaeme so Features of politeness.



23

Over the last 30 years, there has been a vast amount of research and literature of

politeness, which makes this area of study one of the fastest growing ones. However, the

definitions of politeness vary.

Held (2005, p.134) notes that politeness may be understood as a specific type of

linguistic structure, which “expresses the speaker‟s attitude and are thus not explicable by

semantic, but rather by pragmatic means”.

When we think of politeness, we must be aware that interaction is not the same as

exchange of information. As Yule (1996, p. 59) notes, a “linguistic interaction is

necessarily a social interaction.” Thus, participants do not only convey meaning but also

observe social rules and their utterances are shaped also by social distance and closeness.

“These can be external and established prior to the conversation or internal,

established during conversation” (Yule, 1996, p. 60).

External factors typically involve the relative status of participants and internal

factors are for example amount of imposition or degree of friendliness (Yule, 1996).

Another thing that additionally complicates defining politeness is the fact that an

utterance that may be seen as polite by average laymen may not be considered as example

of politeness by linguists. Although most people would label expressions such as “Thank

you” or “Have a nice day” or address terms “sir” and “madam” as polite, Watts (2003)

prefers to group them under the term “politic behaviour”.

This can be defined as “linguistic behaviour geared towards maintaining the

equilibrium of interpersonal relationships within the social group” (Watts, 2005, p.43).

In certain situations the politic behaviour is expected as a standard behaviour.

It would be considered impolite to avoid such behaviour. Thus, Watts insists that

utterances would be interpreted as polite only if they go beyond politic behaviour and are

“in excess of what is minimally required” (Watts, 2003, p. 223).

Politeness can thus be regarded as the behavioural norm for speakers and it is, of

course, speakers only – never utterances – who can be called polite (or impolite), to the

extent that their utterances are in keeping with the particular rights and obligations holding

in a particular interaction and reflect the contextually determined responsibility

interlocutors have to one another.

Politeness is reflected in interactants‟ demonstrated consideration of one another.

The word “demonstrated is meant to imply that this „consideration‟ need not be genuine or

sincere, rather „it is the fact that an effort was made to go through the motions at all thatmakes the act an act of politeness” (Green, 1996, p. 147)



24

Politeness is a set of rules in all societies around the world. It draws attention to the

skills needed to put knowledge into action and to “communicate successfully with people”

(Cook, 1999, p. 11) and thus achieve effects, such as “establish social relationships which

comes to the idea that politeness is of more relevance when the addressees are physically

present, or when the function of the language is to have an effect on the address” (Leech,

Deuchar, Hoogenraad, 1982, p. 149).

In practice, it is the idea of “polite social behaviour”, or etiquette, within a culture

(Yule, 1996, p. 60). This could mean “being tactful, generous, modest, and sympathetic

toward others”. Nevertheless, there is a wide range of formulations within different social

classes.

The main purpose of being tactful and tentative is not to cause offence or distress to

another person as, in English; people accept to be refused in order not to impose.

“Politeness and truth are often mutually incompatible. People are somewhere aware

of those, and in English, there is a special term for what Cook (1999, p. 33) labels as the

surrender of truth to politeness which is called 'a white lie'”.

“Tentativeness is also characterized as an indication of reluctance to cause

themselves on given questions which is connected with social classes” (Leech, Svartvik,

2002, p. 35).

Leech, Deuchar, Hoogenraad (1982, p. 8) say that “in Britain, there is an interesting

relationship between social class and the use of standard and non-standard speech as the

“higher” you are up the social scale, the less likely you use non-standard speech.”

According to Leech, Svartvik (2002, p. 34) “our language tends to be more ´polite´

when we are talking to a person we do not know well, or to a person more senior in age or

social position.”

Context also plays a role: for example, if we are asking a big favour, such as the

loan of a large sum of money, this will induce greater politeness than if we were asking a

small favour, such as the loan of a pen. English has no special familiar pronouns or polite

pronouns, like some languages (e.g. French tu/vous, corresponding to English you).”

Politeness can be defined by the politeness principle (Cook, 1999, p. 32) as “The

politeness principle may be formulated as a series of maxims which people assume are

being followed in the utterance of others. Any flouting of these maxims will take on

meaning provided it is perceived for what it is.”

In practice, “We observe the politeness principle because we wish to avoidconflicts. The politeness principle is a necessary complement to the cooperative principle



25

which rescues the cooperative principle from serious trouble” (Svoboda, Hrehovčík, 2006,

p. 138).

The politeness principle may be characterized by two formulas:

1.

minimize the expression of impolite beliefs

2. maximize the expression of polite beliefs

Similar to Grice, Leech (In Svoboda, Hrehovčík, 2006, p. 138) introduces maxims

and sub-maxims of the politeness principle:

“maxim of tact (other-centred, i.e. address-centred),

maxim of generosity (self-centred, i.e. speaker-centred),

maxim of approbation (other-centred) and

maxim of modesty

The most important is:

Don't impose

Give options

Make your receiver/the addressee feel good”

Recently, there have been several critical and comprehensive examinations and

analyses of politeness studies presented by, for example, Eelen (2001), Watts (2003) and

Bargiela-Chiappini (2003).

Much earlier, Fraser (1990) considered four main ways of viewing politeness in the

research literature: the “social-norm” view, the “conversational-maxim” view, the “face-

saving” view and the “conversational-contract” view. Eelen (2001) also considers these

views, but he compares them differently, and he uses some other theoretical perspectives in

his classification of politeness research.

According to Eelen (2001, p. 20), “not only the notion of politeness as strategic

conflict-avoidance, but also the notion of politeness as social indexing is universal to some

extent in various frameworks of politeness.” These two notions first appear in Kasper

(1990).

“The concept that politeness should be understood as a strategy for avoiding

conflict can be found in the view that the basic social role of politeness is in its ability to

function as a way of controlling potential aggression between interactional parties”

(Brown, Levinson 1978, p.1), or in the “views that connect politeness with smooth



26

communication” (Ide, 1989, p.225) or “with avoiding disruption and maintaining the social

equilibrium and friendly relations” (Leech 1983, p. 17).

2.1.2 Form of address

Form of address e mozno I najvazniot element vo diplomatskata komunikacija, a mozeme

samo da potvrdime deka e isto vazn I vo samata pedagoska komunikacija. Nacinnot na

obracanje na ucitelot kon ucenikot ili obratno , e pocetna faza na natamosnata

komunkacija.

The most important features of politeness in English include: The choice of form of

address (e.g. Sir/Madam). Politeness can be demonstrated by respectful terms of address,

such as Dear Sir/Madam or Mr/Mrs followed by a title or surname of addressed person.

Contrary to this, familiarity is normal in intimate address (e.g. Peter, love). When

we know somebody very well, we do not usually use polite forms of language. Instead, we

normally use first name (Peter), a short name (Pete), a nickname, a pet name (Misty) or we

may not use any term of address. But in case of writing a more intimate letter we usually

begin and end showing affection by using Dear Pete… Yours, Jane.

To add, “Present-day English makes little use of a surname alone, except in third

person reference (e.g. Shakespeare) to someone one does not know personally, but by

repute, such as a famous author, composer or politician” (Leech, Svartvik, 2002, p. 34).

Moreover, the distinction between forms used for a familiar versus a non-familiar

addressee in some languages is an example of a social contrast encoded within person

deixis.

This is called the T/V distinction, which comes from the French forms tu (familiar)

and vous (non-familiar). The speaker chooses one form, which indicates something about

their relationship with the addressee.

“In contexts where individuals typically point out distinctions between the social

status of the speaker and addressee, the higher, older, and more powerful speaker will be

likely to use the tu version to a lower, younger, and less powerful addressee, and will

expect to be addressed by the vous form in return” (Yule 1996, p. 10-11).

Being polite is crucial to successful communication with other people and

impoliteness negatively influences the way a person is perceived, bringing judgements of

being “rude”, “uncooperative” or “offhand” (Watts, 2003, p. 2).

Depending on the content of conversation, there is a need of being polite, as oftenthe content is unpleasant and threatening to the hearer, and the speaker must communicate



27

it in the best way possible. In addition, linguistic politeness is not only used to alleviate

face threatening acts, but this term is often used for conventionalized forms of linguistic

behaviour, words like “please”, that occur even if there is no face threatening act.

“Formality is not just saying “please” in question; it is associated with social

distance. It is a specific language with its special vocabulary as formality has the effect of

producing speech closer to the standard” (Leech, Deuchar & Hoogenraad, 1982, p. 9).

As a rule, the greater complexity reflects the greater formality. “An important

measure of formality is sentence complexity which can be measured in terms of clause

structure, noun phrase structure, and location of vertical complexity” (Leech, Deuchar,

Hoogenraad, 1982, p. 147).

According to Leech & Svartvik (2002, p. 30-33): “Formal language is the type of

language we use publicly for some serious purpose, for example in official reports,

business letters, regulations, and academic writing. Formal English is nearly always

„written‟, but exceptionally it is used in „speech‟, for example in formal public speeches or

lectures.”

Informal language (also called „colloquial‟) is the language of ordinary

conversation, of personal letters, and of private interaction in general. Spoken language is

typically informal, but informal English is now used more and more also in written

communication of a popular fiction.

The difference between formal and informal usage is best seen as a scale, rather

than as a simple “yes/no” distinction (Leech, Svartvik, 2002, p. 31).

Because it is difficult to make a clear distinction between formality and informality,

we could use help of expressions such as “rather formal” or “rather informal”. One reason

for this vagueness is that formality, as a scale, can be applied on the one hand to aspects of

the situation in which communication takes place, and on the other hand to features of

language which correlate with those aspects (Leech, Svartvik, 2002, p. 32).

Holmes (1992, p. 13) characterizes the scale of formality similarly as “The

influence of the social setting or type of interaction on language choice”. Regarding this,

we have to mention over-formality, as it seems to be a problem for non-native English

speakers. “The average native speaker is immediately conscious of formality in language

use that is not warranted by the context. The trend in English usage is moving towards the

employment of informal language wherever possible” (Geaney, 1996, p. 19).

Formality, thus, is influenced by a type of style a speaker chooses to use.Style



28

Verdonk (2002, p. 5) defines style as: “A style is indeed a distinctive way of using

language for some purpose and to some effect. We need to consider what makes an

expression distinctive, why it has been devised, and what effect it has”.

In many situations it is very difficult to distinguish between different styles of

speaking because sometimes they overlap. “Style features, whether lexical or grammatical,

tend to be a matter of frequency, or more precisely a matter of relative frequency” (Leech,

Deuchar, Hoogenraad, 1982, p. 159).

Accordingly, we can characterize five different styles: intimate, which is the most

informal, casual, consultative, formal, and frozen style as most formal. However, most of

the language learners are able to make difference between the three basic styles: formal,

neutral or standard, and informal.

2.2 Speech Acts

Vo slednata chapter ce gi objasnime vo kratki crti Direct I Indirect Speech acts, so cija

primena se ovozmozuva podobro razbiranje I podobro komuniciranje vo razlicni kulturi.

Za nekoi od svetskite jazici e prirodno vo komunikacijata da se koristi Direct Speech Act,

dodeka vo nekoi drugi kulturi se koristi Indriect speech Act za podorbo megjusebno

razbiranje I komunkacija.

I vo pedagogijata kombiniranjeto na ovie dvs Speech Acts moze da dovedat do podobro

razbiranje I uspesno komuniciranje na relacija ucitel – ucenik.

2.2.1 Direct Speech Act

Many politeness studies have focused on the role of the speaker in a conversation,

while almost ignore the role of the hearer. Fretheim presents data showing how

Norwegians express concern for the hearer when making a request, despite the fact that

their language does not contain many conventional markers to express politeness.

Because Norwegian lacks a word for please, Norwegians thank in advance for an

anticipated service. Whereas in English acceptance or rejection of an offer is expressed by

“Yes, please” and “No, thank you,” Norwegian uses the same politeness marker (takk) for

both.

Fretheim further notes that, as though to offset any negative face threats a request

might cause the hearer, the Norwegians thank profusely and have developed numerous

expressions to convey thanks and acknowledge an obligation, even in situations which

might seem odd in other cultures, such as “Thanks for last time,” used to greet someone

upon meeting them for the first time after an event (Hickey, Stewart, 2005, p. 146).



29

Escandell-Vidal (1996) states that politeness studies put more focus on the

impolite, because it goes against societal norms, and is more interesting by its nature.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni provides data from France, which underlines the fact that one

thing may be considered rude in one society while not rude in another. She gives the use of

interruptions in French as an example. Despite Tannen‟s (1990) revolutionary work on

gender and interruptions, which claims that females tend to interrupt to signal cooperation

and support, in English, interruptions are normally considered to be unacceptable.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni asserts that contrary to English, in French, interruptions “help

speed up the tempo of a conversation, they can brighten up an exchange, and make it

sparkle, give it warmth, spontaneity, and a sense that everyone is fully involved” (Hickey,

Stewart, 2005, p. 42).

Hickey draws similar conclusions from his observations of conversations in Spain,

noting that Spaniards talk over each other as a way of “showing enthusiasm, passion, and

positive involvement in the conversation, factors rated more highly than silently awaiting

one‟s „turn‟” (Hickey, Stewart, 2005, p. 318).

2.2.2 Indirect Speech Act

Most world languages have three sentence types: declarative, interrogative and

imperative; and these are usually associated with three basic illocutionary forces:

asserting/stating, asking/questioning and ordering/requesting, respectively (Huang, 2007).

But, “each of these expressive forces can be achieved through any sentence type. Speech

acts are called indirect, “if there is no direct relationship between a sentence type and an

illocutionary force” (Huang, 2007, p. 110).

Levinson (1983, p.264) even asserts that “most usages are indirect and he sets as

example requests that are only rarely expressed via imperative in English.”

“The situation is further complicated by the fact that with most utterances both

direct and indirect speech acts are performed at the same time” (Robinson, 2006, p. 91).

So, to classify the utterances solely on the basis of their form is not sufficient, because one

formal sentence ty pe can be used to express several expressive forces and “what people do

with sentences seems quite unrestricted by the surface form” (Levinson, 1983, p. 265).

The speaker who uses an indirect speech act expects the addressee to be able to

understand the inferred meaning. As Blakemore (1992, p. 92) states it, successful

communication is “a matter of having your intention to perform a particular type of speech



act recognized”. That is to say that the hearer needs enough information and resources to

recognize the speech act of the speaker.

“Addressee‟s understanding of an indirect speech act always involves some kind of

inference” (Huang, 2007, p. 112).

Levinson (1983, p. 270) names four essential properties that are shared by all

inference theories:

“The literal meaning and the literal force of an utterance is computed by, and

available to, participants,

For an utterance to be an indirect speech act, there must be an inference-trigger, i.e.

some indication that the literal meaning and/or literal force is conversationally inadequate

in the context and must be “repaired” by some inference,

There must be specific principles or rules of inference that will derive, from the

literal meaning and force and the context, the relevant indirect force,

There must be pragmatically sensitive linguistic rules or constraints.”

For example, the second rule that emphasizes the importance of context in order the

hearer to infer the meaning of an indirect speech is particularly important for hosts of talk

shows. It is quite easy for them to infer the intended meaning; the context of an interview

is itself an inference-trigger. In one talk show the guests know that the rules of that genre

involve answering questions. Even if the host makes a form of declaration, they infer that

the indirect meaning would be understood as “Can you tell me something more about it?”

“The use of indirect speech acts is generally associated with politeness” (Huang,

2007, p. 115). If the speaker chooses to use the indirect rather than the direct speech act,

they offer an opportunity to the hearer to react only to the literal meaning of the utterance

and ignore the inferred meaning. Therefore, even though the person who is interviewed

knows that the interviewer used a declarative form to gather information and also is aware

of the type of information they expect, the interviewee feels a certain amount of freedom to

choose whether to answer the question or not.

The use of indirect speech acts (e.g. …, will you?).

“In English, indirect speech acts are preferred especially when ordering, requesting,

advising and offering” (Dontcheva-Navrátilová, 2005, p. 60)

english as language of diplomcay

Documents