Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:13:50.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The quantitative study of communicative success: Politeness and accidents in aviation discourse1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Charlotte Linde
Charlotte Linde
Affiliation:
NASA Ames Research Center, National Research Council
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sociolinguistics has never been a closed or autonomous discipline, but rather has considered relations between linguistic variables and so-called real-world variables, such as age, sex, and social class. Developments in discourse analysis now permit the analysis of the effectiveness of utterances in their real-world context. This study of communicative success uses as its data transcripts of eight aviation accidents, as well as transcripts of fourteen flight simulator sessions. The linguistic variable considered is mitigation; the real-world variables are success or failure of the individual communication, and peer judgments of the overall effectiveness of the simulator crews. To quantify the use of mitigation, a four-degree scale was established by using the judgments of several linguistic analysts and was validated against the judgments of members of the aviation community. Using this scale, a number of hypotheses were confirmed: (1) Utterances going up the chain of command are more mitigated than those going down, showing that mitigation is sensitive to social rank. (2) Utterances introducing a new topic are more likely to fail if they are mitigated than if they are direct. (3) Suggestions by a crew member to the captain are more likely to fail if they are mitigated than if they are direct. These results show a strong effect of mitigation on several measures of communicative success. This study shows that a quantitative study of communicative success is possible and suggests the necessity for further studies of this type as a necessary direction for discourse analysis. (Pragmatics, discourse analysis, communicative effectiveness, politeness, mitigation, perlocutionary force, man-machine interface)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 1988 , pp. 375 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bateson, G. (1975). Steps to an ecology of mind. Ballantine.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N. (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 56–289.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (ed.). (1980). The Pear Stories: Cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production. (Vol. 3, Advances in Discourse Processes Series). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
Erickson, F., & Schultz, J. J. (1982). The counselor as gatekeeper. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5:25–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, R. (1983). The laying on of hands: Aspects of the organization of gaze, touch and talk in a medical encounter. In Fisher, S. & Todd, A. (eds.), The social organization of doctor-patient communication. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. 19–54.Google Scholar
Frankel, R. (1984). From sentence to sequence: Understanding the medical encounter through microin-teractional analysis. Discourse Processes. 135–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, R. (to appear). Microanalysis and the medical encounter. In Helm, D., Anderson, W. T., & Meehan, A. J. (eds.), New directions in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Irvington.Google Scholar
Frankel, R., & Beckman, H. (1982). IMPACT: An interaction-based method for preserving and analyzing clinical transactions. In Pettigrew, L. (ed.), Explorations in provider and patient interactions. Irvington. 71–85.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Replies and responses. In Goffman, E., Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 5–77.Google Scholar
Goguen, J., & Linde, C. (1983). Linguistic methodology for the analysis of aviation accidents. Technical Report, Structural Semantics. NASA Contractor Report 3741, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.Google Scholar
Griffin, P., & Mehan, H. (1981). Sense and ritual in classroom discourse. In Coulmas, F. (ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton. 187–213.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1967). Some sources of reading problems for speakers of non-standard Negro English. In Frazier, A. (ed.), New directions in elementary English. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1983). Recognizing Black English in the classroom. In Chambers, J. Jr., (ed.), Black English: Educational equity and the law. Ann Arbor: Karoma. 29–55.Google Scholar
Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McDermott, R. (1976). Kids make sense: An ethnographic account of the interactional management of success and failure in one first grade classroom. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M., Randle, R., Tanner, T., Frankel, R., Goguen, J., & Linde, C. (1984). A full mission simulator study of aircrew performance: The measurement of crew coordination factors and their relation to flight task performance. In Hartzell, E. J. & Hart, S. (eds.), Papers from the 20th Annual Conference on Manual Control. Moffett Field, Calif.: NASA Ames Research Center.Google Scholar
National Transportation Safety Board. (1979). Aircraft accident report – United Airlines, Inc., McDonnell-Douglas DC-8–61, N8082U, Portland. Technical Report, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Quasthoff, U. (1985). Narrative analysis: An interdisciplinary dialogue. Poetics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. B. (1981). Narrative, literacy, and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. McH., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1979). Processes and consequences of conversational style. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Tannen, D., & Wallat, C. (1983). Doctor/mother/child communication: Linguistic analysis of a pediatric examination. In Fisher, S. & Todd, A. (eds.), The social organization of doctor-patient communication. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. M. (1985). Miscommunication in native/nonnative conversation. Language in Society 14:327–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, C. (1983). Ask me no questions: A study of dominance and control in conversation. In Fisher, S. & Todd, A. (eds.), The social organization of doctor-patient communication. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. 75–106.Google Scholar
Wolfe, T. (1979). The right stuff. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar