Valery V.Mykhailenko, D.Sc. Bukovyna State Finance Academy

 Olga I. Pompush, M.A. Chernivtsi National University

  Chernivtsi Ukraine

     

                            Phatic Units in DISCOURSE

     Abstract: this paper is focused on the phatic constituent of communication. Several models of communication were analysed to stress the common and specific features. Three subparadigms of phatic communication are proposed and verified in the author`s  discourse.

    Key words: phatic communication, model, subparadigm, starters, supporters, terminators, pausefillers.

    Language must be investigated in all the variety of its functions. Therefore functionalism in linguistics was initiated by V. Mathesius and Prague School who stressed the importance of a non-historical approach to the study of modern language. The first step in language use is phatic communion [10, 224]. The language in use or speech reveals its basic function of creating or maintaining “bonds of sentiment” between speakers [9, 315]. L.G.Volkova  defines phatic function as a communicative language function that serves for making and supporting a contact. [1, 12]

We would like to specify this function into:

1. making a contact, e. g.: "Good-morning, Isabel," he said gaily.

                                 "Good-morning, Bateman" [12, 49];

2.supporting a contact, e.g.: “Oh, I beg your pardon. I thought you said six hours.” 11, 124];

3.finishing a contact, e.g.: “Good-bye,” she said politely, “good-bye. Thanks, Jelly-bean” [11, 10].

The traditional model of language as elucidated by K. Bühler was confined to three functions: emotive, conative, and referential — and three nodes of this model — the first person of the addressor, the second person of the addressee and the third person proper (somebody spoken of) [6, 68]:

Scheme ¹1.     K.Bühler`s Organon Model

 

Then R. Jakobson improved this triadic model due to the meaning and the internal structure of the message [8, 350]. The addressor sends a message to the addressee. To be operative the message requires a context referred to, comprehensive by the addressee, either verbal or capable of being verbalized; a code fully or at least partially, common to the addressor and addressee (encoder and decoder of the message) and finally, a contact, a physical channel and psychological connection between the addresser and the addressee, enabling both of them to enter and stay in communication [8, 352]:

 

Addressor
 

Addressee
 

Code
 
 


Context
 

Scheme ¹2    R.Jakobson`s Semiotic Model

Let’s compare R.Jakobson’s  model with that of M. Bakhtin one [4,174] : 

Object
 
 


                                                                                       

Scheme ¹3        M. Bakhtin`s Culturological Model

                                  

     There are some  differences between R.Jakobson`s and M.Bakhtin`s models, that could be considered purely terminological. M.Bakhtin introduces the relations to other utterances (intertext), something that is missing in R.Jakobson.

     Yu.Lotman considered R.Jakobson`s model of communication to be  too abstract, emphasizing the fact that the speaker and the listener cannot have  exactly the same code and the same memory volume . Yu. Lotman  underlined that language  is the code plus its history.

    In order to show the fundamental functions of the text Yu.Lotman defines the way information is communicated with the help of  language from the perspectives of the Speaker and the Hearer. In his explanation Yu.Lotman modifies the sequence shown in the following scheme [4, 51]:

              Scheme ¹4   Yu.Lotman`s Semiotic Model

  Th. Sebeok`s model of communication is similar to R.Jakobson`s but with  two specific features: (1)the context is the factor within which the entire communication act is embedded and (2) the model includes communication that is not based in human language. He states that all communication systems are not just dynamic but adaptive, they are self regulated to suit both the external content and the internal content[4,205] :

                                                  Context

Context
 

         Scheme ¹5.    Th.Sebeok`s Semiotic Model

 

    Claude Shannon put forward three levels of communication: technical, semantic and level of effectiveness. According to Claude Shannon the model of communication [4,212] can be represented as follows:

                                                                                  

Scheme ¹6      C.Shannon`s Mathematical Model

 

According to R.Jakobson each of six language factors determines its own language function. Although we distinguish six basic aspects of language, we could, however, hardly find a verbal message that would fulfill a single function only. The verbal structure of a message depends primarily on the predominant function Thus language has the following six functions: referential (denotative, cognitive); emotive (expressive); conative; phatic; metalingual; poetic [8, 352-353].

The objective of the present paper is the phatic paradigm formation in the author’s discourse ( F. S. Fitzgerald and W. S. Maugham). To achieve the objective it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

● to single out the structural-semantic typology of phatic utterances

● to establish the functional-communicative characteristics of phatic utterances

● to reveal the pragmatic characteristics of the phatic utterances

The tasks can be realized with the help of the following methods of analysis: descriptive, structural, discourse.

The works of K. Bühler, R.Jakobson, B. Malinowski, L.Volkova,  S.Tyurina, Y.Matyukhina, O.Melnychuk et al. constitute the theoretical framework of the investigation. From the data 205 (the novels by F. S. Fitzgerald novels and W. S. Maugham) phatic utterances were retrieved from - 69  from the novels by W. S. Maugham and 136  from the novels by F. S. Fitzgerald.

          Phatic communication is realized with the help of specialized verbal means – speech stereotypes and non-specialized verbal and non-verbal means. Phatic function ensures effective and continuous exchange of information through the chosen communication channel, regulating the interpersonal and social aspects of communication. The information transmitted during the phatic communication is socio-regulative, it`s main function is to express the addressor`s intention to install, to continue or to finish the contact, but it doesn`t deliver any cognitive information. [2, 10]

             The phatic function is most clearly reflected in dialogic communication. Dialogue is a special kind of speech, characterized by specific types of lexical, grammatical, and intonational pattern.The dialogical speech has a bilateral nature and has its characteristic features, such as: conciseness, ellipticity, reticence, inconsistency, abruptness, sometimes simultaneous exchange of remarks, asyndeton, widespread use of paralinguistic means. There are various dialogical types depending upon the degree of participation of interlocutors, their relationship, conditions of communication. [5, 2]

Peculiarities of phatic communication have not had undergone a systemic analysis in linguistics yet. Traditionally it is acknowledged that phatic utterances do not convey any important information. But the results of our investigation prove that phatic utterances may serve as markers of interlocutors’ education, age, and social status. Sometimes the way one person greets the other one may serve as an indication of whether the language of communication is native or foreign, whether the speaker is educated or not, whether s/he is a northerner or southerner, etc. The author’s discourse can be defined as a pattern of verbal behaviour but, at the same time, it can be viewed as a verbal form of social behaviour, an instance of communicative language use, and the process of unfolding an idea into a text [7, 54].

Phatic communication is a type of speech in which the discourse cohesion can be created.

 It is a component of communication that serves as a verbal means of speech interaction. Politeness is the ruling principle of phatic discourse [2, 6]. Polite expressions are obligatory constituents of everyday communication. Politeness is represented by various etiquette operations: greeting, congratulation, apology, blessing, gratitude. O.Melnychuk introduces the concept of ‘etiquette utterance’ instead of “phatic utterance”  to indicate the communiucative realisation and modification of a gramamtical sentence bearing basic formal-grammatical characteristics: specificality, predicativity, modality, and intonation. [3, 7].

We distinguish the following subparadigms of phatic communication:

1.     communication starters — greetings, for example:

          “Hello, Jim.”

The Jelly-bean tipped his hat quickly.

“Hi Ben —” then, after an almost imperceptible pause — “How y’ all?”[11, 6];

 “Hello, Mac; up at last? I don’t know how you can waste the best part of the day in bed. You ought to have been up before dawn like me. Lazy beggar” [12, 4];

           “Howdy?”

“Hello —” she paused, hesitated and then approached. “Oh, it’s — Jim Powell” [11, 14];

            A fat man with red hair cut in.

“Hello, Edith,” he began.

“Why — hello there —”

She slipped, stumbled lightly [11, 124].

The most important functions of communication starters are the following: to provide the participants with acceptable means of stating the outlines of the roles they are prepared to play in the oncoming interaction, at least in terms of status, psychological distance and territoriality; to extend and accept invitations to sociolinguistic solidarity; and to facilitate the comfortable initiation, free from tension and hostility of the interaction.

2. communication supporters — these are phatic units that express apology or gratitude. For example:

         She stepped forward and took his arm.

“I’m sorry,” she said softly. “I don’t know why I snapped out that way. I’m in a bum humor to-night for some strange reason. I’m sorry.”

“S’all right,” he mumbled, “don’t mention it” [11, 121].

Phatic units that serve as pause-fillers may be regarded as a subparadigm of communication supporters. For example:

          “Well,” he said finally, “I got a room over Tilly’s garage. I help him some with the cars in the afternoon an’ he gives it to me free [11, 7];

            Betty was waiting for him.

“Well,” she began furiously, “you see what you’ve done! You and that crazy license! I told you you shouldn’t have gotten it!” [11, 79].

3. communication terminators — establish a continuing consensus for the future encounters. Therefore in a broad sense greeting and parting behavior may be termed ritual, or example:

“Good-night everybody,” called Clark.

“Good-night, Clark.”

“Good-night.”

There was a pause, and then a soft, happy voice added,

“Good-night, Jelly-bean” [11, 28];

         “I’ll see you at the dance,” continued Dean. “I’ve got to get along to the barber shop.”

“So-long,” said Gordon in a strained and husky voice.

“So-long” [11, 103].

S.Tyurina pays a special attention to pauses in discourse and regards them as a type of non-verbal phatic communication. The reason for a pause may be a verbal inexpressibility or a large amount of knowledge volume, common for both interlocutors, which may reduce the communication needs, or the communication purpose. There are pauses, arising within the speech, and pauses signifying the completion of the verbal contact, which may remain non-verbalised. [5, 5] However, we study pauses filled with language units, which can be classified into a suparadigm of pausefillers alongside with communication supporters or communication terminators.

Thus, phatic communion is a complex part of a ritual, highly skilled mosaic of communicative behavior whose function is to facilitate the management of interpersonal relationships. All the subparadigms are pragmatically marked. A pragmatic aspect is a mode of investigation of discourse in which language units are singled out and investigated from the point of view of their relation to the speaker. Pragmatic orientation ensures an adequate perception of the text.

Among the problems related to the pragmatic trend of language investigation we particularly stress the study of the discourse in its dynamics and in its correlation with the author. Each type of language behaviour correlates with a certain aspect of pragmatic content. We distinguish between two types of this phenomenon: partial discourse pragmatics, i.e. the pragmatics of the addressor exercised in the horizontal plane of speech and complete discourse pragmatics, i.e. the pragmatics of the addressee that emerges as a result of the perception of the whole discourse.

In all cultures phatic communion seems to be an almost universal habit indulged in various phases of interactions. Relationships can be mostly revealed in communication. Saying “hello” may not alter or develop the relationship, but not saying “hello” would certainly weaken it. Phatic communication, by maintaining and reaffirming relationships, is crucial in linking a community or society together.

Pragmatic classification of phatic utterances in W. S. Maugham’s discourse may be represented in the following table:                                                                           Table ¹1. Pragmatic classification of phatic utterances

in W. S. Maugham’s discourse

age

senior

junior

Hello, Mac, up at last?(employer)

Good morning, doc!(employee)

Hello, Ethel! (husband)

I beg pardon(wife)

I'm pleased to meet you, Mr Hunter (an acquaintance)

Excuse me for asking you to come here(an acquaintance)

Excuse me, Dr Macphail (friends)

How can I ever thank you?

I'm sorry to hear you're not well

 

equal

equal

Good-morning, Isabel (friends)

Good-morning, Bateman

good night (friends)

good night

forgive me (friends)

forgive me

I'm so desperately sorry (physician)

I'm so desperately sorry (patient)

I'm sorry for that (friends)

I'm sorry for that

I'm terribly sorry you should think that of me, Dr Macphail

 

I'm sorry to cause any lady inconvenience

Pardon me, doctor

I must ask you to excuse me

 

social status

senior

junior

Hello, Mac, up at last?(employer)

Good morning, doc (employee)

equal

equal

good night (husband)

good night (wife)

job relations

friendly relations

 

Well, I'll be getting along home(friends)

 

Well, I must be off

    As we may see from Table 1, a pragmatic classification of phatic utterances in W. S. Maugham’s discourse may be classified in terms of age (senior à junior; equal  àequal); socials status (senior à  junior; equal à equal), and formal àfriendly relations.

Table ¹ 2. Pragmatic classification of phatic utterances

                   in F. S. Fitzgerald’s discourse

age

senior

junior

Hello!(fiancé)

Hello! (bride)

Good morning(doctor)

Good-morning, sir (patient)

darling, good morning (friends)

Oh, I beg your pardon

 

Thanks

equal

equal

Hello, Jim (friends)

Hi!

Hi, old man. How you making out? (former classmates)

Hello, old boy, how you making out?

I’m very sorry (friends)

I’m—mighty sorry

Thanks, loads

 

Hm (friends)

Hm

education

educated

uneducated

How do you do? (an acquaintance)

Hi Ben. How y’ all?

 

Howdy?

 

Hallo, kiddo, how’s the air up there

social status

senior

junior

 

Good-morning, sir (an employee)

Good-night!

Good-night! (servant)

If you’ll just pardon me a moment

 

equal

equal

Hello!  (friends)

Hello!

Good-bye! (friends)

Good-bye!

So-long (friends)

So-long

Sorry (friends)

Sorry

job relations

friendly relations

Good-morning, sir (servant)

Hello, Gordon

I’m very glad to meet you, Mr. Button (servant)

Hello, Edith

 

Hello, Bo!

 

 

 

In F. S. Fitzgerald’s discourse a pragmatic classification of phatic utterances differs from that  in W. S. Maugham’s – the most frequent are the utterances marked with  pragmatic features of age (senior à junior; equal  àequal); socials status (senior à junior; equal àequal) and types of relation (formal à friendly relations), we also come across an education factor: educated speakers  à uneducated speakers.

As we can see, a comparative analysis of phatic utterances in W. S. Maugham’s and F. S. Fitzgerald’s discourses underlines that there are more common features than differential features in their discourses.

The results of our investigation reveal that pragmatic characteristics of phatic utterances according to the education feature (educated à uneducated) were registered only in F. S. Fitzgerald’s discourse, while W. S. Maugham’s discourse is characterized by extensive use of phatic utterances of various age groups. From the functional-communicative point of view phatic utterances in the discourse of both authors may be divided into greetings, leave-taking, apologies, gratitudes, and pausefillers. However, we have put forward three subparadigms of phatic communication: communication starters, communication supporters and communication terminators according to the communication phases. We regard pausefillers to be a subparadigm of communication supporters.

REFERENCES

1.                 Âîëêîâà Ë. Ã. Ôàòè÷åñêàÿ ôóíêöèÿ è ñèíòàêñè÷åñêèå ñðåäñòâà åå ðåàëèçàöèè: àâòîðåô. äèñ. êàíä. ôèëîë. íàóê: ñïåö. 10.02.01/Â.Ë Ãåííàäüåâíà. – Òîìñê, 1998. – 19 ñ.

2.                 Ìàòþõ³íà Þ. Â. Ðîçâèòîê ñèñòåìè ôàòè÷íî¿ ìåòàêîìóí³êàö³¿ â àíãë³éñüêîìó äèñêóðñ³ XVI — XX ñò. : àâòîðåô. äèñ. íà çäîáóòòÿ íàóê. ñòóïåíÿ êàíä. ô³ëîë. íàóê : ñïåö. 10.02.04 / Þ. Â. Ìàòþõ³íà. — Õàðê³â, 2004. — 20 ñ.

3.                 Ìåëüíè÷óê Î. Ì. Óêðà¿íñüêèé ìîâëåííºâèé åòèêåò: ñèíòàêñè÷íî-ñòèë³ñòè÷íèé àñïåêò: àâòîðåô.äèñ. íà çäîáóòòÿ íàóê. ñòóïåíÿ êàíä. ô³ëîë. íàóê : ñïåö. 10.02.01 / Î. Ì. Ìåëüíè÷óê. — ×åðí³âö³, 2005. — 20 ñ.

4.                 Ïî÷åïöîâ Ã.Ã. Òåîðèÿ êîììóíèêàöèè / Ãåîðãèé Ãåîðãèåâè÷ Ïî÷åïöîâ. – Ì.: Èçä-âî «Ðåôë-áóê», 1999. – 581ñ.

5.                 Òþðèíà Ñ.Þ. Äèàëîãè÷åñêèé äèñêóðñ â äåëîâîé ìåæêóëüòóðíîé êîììóíèêàöèè: àâòîðåô. äèñ. êàíä. ôèëîë. íàóê: ñïåö. 22.03.06/Ñ.Þ. Òþðèíà. – Âëàäèìèð, 2006. – 15ñ.

6.                 Áþëåð Ê. Òåîðèÿ ÿçûêà / Êàðë Áþëåð. — Ì.: Èçä-âî “Ïðîãðåññ”, 2000. — 501 ñ.

7.                 Brown G. Discourse Analysis / G. Brown, G. Yule. — Cambridge: CUP, 1983. — 228 p.

8.                 Jakobson R. Linguistics and Poetics / Roman Jakobson. — Cambridge: CUP, 1960. — 574 p.

9.                 Malinowski B. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism / Bronislaw Malinowski — N.-Y. : Routledge, 1927. — 336 p.

10.             Sampson G. Schools of Linguistics: Competition and Evolution / G.  Sampson.- London: Hutchinson, 1980.

11.             Fitzgerald F. S. Tales of the Jazz Age / Francis Scott Fitzgerald. — Cambridge: CUP, 2002. — 568 p.

12.             Maugham W. S. The Trembling of a Leaf: Little Stories of the South Sea Islands / William Somerset Maugham. — Cambridge : CUP, 2009. — 304 p.