You are on page 1of 25

!"#$%&'(%)#*+!,%-(.#/01/02.

%341/05%6#77*20#2
&*/4#'89:,%;*9/02(%6#*<=12>?%-0@#=19%6#*<=12>?%;(AA'(B%CD%E#F029#2
G#*'5(,%H12.*1.(%02%G#50(/B?%I#=D%JK?%-#D%J%8;*2D?%KLLJ:?%<<D%JMNOJPM
3*F=094(>%FB,%617F'0>.(%Q20R('90/B%3'(99
G/1F=(%QEH,%http://www.jstor.org/stable/4168343
&55(99(>,%JKSMTSJMML%KM,KU

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language
in Society.

http://www.jstor.org
Language in Society 21, 207-230. Printed in the United States of America

"How are you?": Negotiating phatic communion1


JUSTINE COUPLAND AND NIKOLAS COUPLAND
Centrefor Applied EnglishLanguageStudies
Universityof WalesCollege of Cardiff
Cardiff CFI 3XE, UK

JEFFREY D. ROBINSON
CommunicationArts and Sciences
Universityof SouthernCalifornia
Los Angeles, CA 90089

ABSTRACT

Sinceits introductionby Malinowskiin the 1920S, "phaticcommunion"


has often been appealedto as a conceptin sociolinguistics,semantics,
stylistics,and communication,typicallytakento designatea convention-
alizedand desemanticizeddiscoursemode or "type."But a negotiation
perspective,followingthe conversationanalysistraditionof researchon
greetingsand troublestelling,fits the discursiverealitiesbetter.Phaticity
is a multidimensionalpotentialfor talk in many social settings, where
speakers'relationalgoals supercedetheircommitmentto factualityand
instrumentality.We then analyzephaticprocessesin elderlypeople'sre-
sponses to a scriptedhow are you? opening in interviewsabout their
medicalexperiences.Discourseanalysesof phaticcommunioncan raise
importantissues for gerontologicaland medicalresearch.(Phaticcom-
munion, small talk, greetings, elderly talk, medical talk, preference
structure)

The termphatic communionoriginatedin the writingsof the Britishfunc-


tionalist school of linguistics- an importantprecursorto modernsociolin-
guistics, closely affiliatedto anthropologyand culturalconcerns.The first
usageof the termis usuallyattributedto Malinowski(1923). Althoughphatic
communionis a conceptthat has surfacedquite regularlyin semantics,so-
ciolinguistics,and communicationresearch,therehavebeenveryfew system-
atic attemptsto draw on or elaborateon the concept in sociolinguisticsor
discoursestudies, the main exceptionbeing Laver'sseries of papersin the
1970S and I98os (see laterdiscussion).Consequently,phaticcommunionre-
mainsan often appealedto but underanalyzedtermin an implicittaxonomy
of discourse"types."Our main objectivesin this articleare to enter into a
? Igg2 Cambridge University Press 0047-4045/92 $5.00 + .00

207
COUPLAND, COUPLAND, AND ROBINSON

debateabout whatphaticcommunionappropriatelyand usefullydesignates


in face-to-faceinteractionand particularlyto explorehow sequencesof talk
may come to be designatedas phaticor otherwisein one specificdiscourse
context: in interviewswith elderlypeople about their health experiences.
The first part of the articleis a reviewof whereand how the notion of
phatic communionsurfacesin literatureson social ritual, sociolinguistics,
stylistics,facework,conversationanalysis,and communicationgenerally.In
the empiricalsection, we focus on the openingexchangesof interviewswith
elderlypeopleabouttheirexperiencesof healthcare,and specificallyon their
responsesto a scriptedinitialquestion:how areyou? Withintheseresponses,
we identifythe rangeof strategiesspeakersuse for achievingdegreesof "pha-
ticity"as they negotiateindividualcoursesbetweenmedicaland formulaic
talk. Finally,we suggesthow investigationsof phaticcommunionmighthave
a relevanceto the medicaland gerontologicalconcernsthat we are address-
ing in our currentresearch.

A HISTORICAL REVIEW

Malinowski
In the widelycited 1923 supplement,Malinowskidescribedphaticcommu-
nion as "languageused in free, aimless, social intercourse"(Malinowski
1972:I42; this is a reprint,to which page numbersin this section refer). In
his famous dictum, phaticcommunionis "a type of speechin whichties of
unionarecreatedby a mereexchangeof words,"whenpeople"aimlesslygos-
sip" (I5I), "the function of speechin mere sociabilities"(I50). On the as-
sumptionthatthe needfor the merepresenceof othersis "oneof the bedrock
aspectsof man's [sic] naturein society,"speechcan be seen as "theintimate
correlateof this tendency"(I50). Therefore,communionamonghumanswill
often be markedin speech- "phatically."Theseare the termsin whichini-
tial formulasof greetingand parting(one of Malinowski'sexamplesis nice
day today) and the "flow of language"that follows such utterancesare to
be interpreted:"purposelessexpressionsof preferenceor aversions,accounts
of irrelevanthappenings,commentson what is perfectlyobvious"(ibid.).
In this initial delimitation,we find the origins of the interpretationof
phaticcommunionas a form of "smalltalk," discourseoperatingin a lim-
ited domain and dislocated from practicalaction and what Malinowski
thoughtof as "purposiveactivities"(whichincludehunting,tillingsoil, and
warin "primitive"societies).Malinowskineverthelessrecognizedphatictalk
to be a formof action,serving"to establishbondsof personalunionbetween
people broughttogetherby the mere need of companionship"(i5I). Even
thoughit may "notserveany purposeof communicatingideas,"phaticcom-
munion is functionalin defusingthe threatof taciturnity(i5o).
208
NEGOTIATING PHATIC COMMUNION

Thereare no illustrativeexamplesof any detailin the originaltreatment,


though Malinowskinoted thereis a preferencefor affirmationand consent
in phatictalk, perhapsmixedwith an incidentaldisagreementthat createsthe
"bondsof antipathy"(150). Anotherpossibilityis when speakersoffer per-
sonal accountsof theirviews and life histories,to which (said Malinowski)
hearerslistenundersome restraintand with slightlyveiledimpatience,wait-
ing for their own turn to speak. "Butthough the hearinggiven to such ut-
terancesis as a rule not as intense as the speaker'sown share, it is quite
essentialfor his [sic] pleasure"(150-5i). For Malinowski,phaticcommunion
sus-
is therefore"talkingsmall"in the furthersensethat it is communicatively
pect or at least dissimulative.Malinowskicertainlyfelt there was a funda-
mental indirectnessin phatic exchanges:
Are words in phatic communionused primarilyto convey meaning,the
meaning which is symbolically theirs? Certainly not! . . . A mere phrase
of politeness . . . fulfils a function to which the meaning of its words is
almost completelyirrelevant.Inquiriesabout health [ouremphasis,since
the expressionrelatesdirectlyto the data we considerlater],commentson
the weather,affirmationsof some supremelyobvious state of things- all
suchareexchanged,not in orderto inform,not in this caseto connectpeo-
ple to action, certainlynot in orderto expressany thought. (I5I)
The legacyof Malinowski'streatmentis thereforea somewhatambivalent
view of phatic communion- talk that is aimless,prefatory,obvious, unin-
teresting,sometimessuspect,and even irrelevant,but part of the processof
fulfilling our intrinsicallyhumanneeds for social cohesivenessand mutual
recognition.
A consensusview
In the manylateruses of the termphatic communion,it is the negativeval-
uation that predominates,particularlywhen talk is analyzedto be referen-
tially deficient and communicativelyinsignificant.Abercrombiesuggested
that, "Theactualsense of the wordsused in phaticcommunionmatterslit-
tle" (1956:3). Wolfson (I98I) discussedhow foreign studentsin the United
States complainabout "phoney"invitationsto social events offered insin-
cerelyas partof phaticsmalltalk. Cheepen(I988) revivedMalinowski'sdis-
tinctionbetweenlanguageas a mode of action and phaticcommunion.She
renamed phatic communion "chat" (14ff), though she took the category to
includenarrativeas a key element(which Malinowskiin fact considereda
separatecategory).Hudson (I980) glossed phaticcommunionas "the kind
of chit-chatthat people engagein simplyin orderto show that they recog-
nize each other'spresence"(IO9).
Thomas, Bull, and Roger(I982) listedphatic as one of their 12 "activity
categories"in communication.Theydefinedthe categoryas "speechthat ini-
209
COUPLAND, COUPLAND, AND ROBINSON

tiates conversation, but [that is] . . . conventional and ritualised, such as


'hello', 'how are you?', etc." (148). Leech (1974) stressedthe uncontrover-
sial natureof phatictalk and consideredit "dulland pedestrian"(62). Turner
(I973) saw it as semantically"empty."In his view, we should"givethe name
'phaticlanguage'to all languagewhichis designedmoreto accommodateand
acknowledgea hearerthan to carrya message"(212). (See also Cheepen
I988:i6ff., for a useful reviewof this literatureand Schneider1987.) There
are, of course, extensivefurtherliteratureson small talk (Beinstein1975;
Schneider I988), situational formulas (Matisoff 1979; Tannen & Oztek 198I),
greetings (Firth 1972; Sacks 1975), politeness (Ferguson I98I; Brown &
Levinson1978, I987), and relatedconceptsthat all owe a considerabledebt
to theorizingabout phatic communion.
One furtherareaof researchthat connectswell with the Malinowskiper-
spectivein contemporarysociolinguisticstudieshas beenthe analysisof gos-
sip, usuallyin connectionwith genderissues. Mills (I989) showedhow even
by the mid-i6th century,"a gossip"had come to referto "a person, mostly
a woman, of light and triflingcharacter,especiallyone who delightsin idle
talk, a newsmonger,a tatler"(io8). Gossipingis variouslytreatedas a per-
nicious stereotypedattributionof women (Spender I980), "an aspect of
[actual]femalelanguageuse"(Jones 1990:242), an agencyfor moralrepro-
duction (Gluckman I963), or an indispensablefeminist weapon (Osman
I984). We cannot enter this debate here and merely point out that the
attributesoften taken to define gossip overlapvery directlywith those of
phatictalk (andMalinowskihimselfusedthe termgossipin illustratingphatic
communion- see earlierquotation),not leastin termsof topicrestrictionand
triviality,nonfactuality,and relationalcloseness.
Takenas a whole, these latertreatmentstend to underplayMalinowski's
insistanceon the humanembeddednessof phatic communion- indeed his
motivation for using the term communionratherthan communicationor
speech. But beyondthis, the assumptionsunderlyingmanyof thesecontem-
poraryapproachesraisetheir own difficulties.Phatic communionis taken
to designatesome sort of minimalistcommunicativepractice,thoughalong
severalpossibledimensions.The "mereness"of phatic communion(which
is clearenoughin Malinowskitoo) by virtueof its low interestvalue, low in-
formationvalue,low relevance,perhapsalso its low trustworthiness, presup-
poses an alternativemode of "true"or "authentic"discoursefrom which
phatictalk deviates.Functionally,it is conceivedas talk that will be enacted
"forits own sake"or "to avoidotherproblems"(cf. Robinson1972). But this
approachimplicitlyvalidateswhathas beencalledthe machinemetaphorfor
humancommunication(ScollonI985): communicationis a generativemech-
anism and the machinemust be "humming"if we are not to believeit has
broken down. But is it reallyappropriateto see phatic communionas less
than perfect operationof the machineor as communicativetick-over?
210
NEGOTIATING PHATIC COMMUNION

Whatmight"proper,""full,"or "accelerated" communicativeinteraction


involve? Taking the converses of the (consensual)defining attributesof
phatictalk, we would have to identifytalk that involved:(I) factual infor-
mation exchange,(2) instrumentalgoals, (3) seriouskey, and (4) unwaver-
ing commitmentto openness,truth,and disclosiveness.Thesecharacteristics
are not dissimilarfrom those referredto in Grice'swell-knownmaximsof
cooperativetalk. But therearemanyreasonsto doubt(andGricehimselfwas
far fromclaiming)that we can identifysucha modeof talkin actionlet alone
treat it as a communicationideal (see Brown& Rogers I99I, for a parallel
discussion).The most importantreason is that it is demonstrablythe case
that even our most instrumental,transactionalencountersare pervasivelyor-
ganizedaroundmultipleinteractionalgoals that go well beyond the trans-
mission and reception of factual information (see Tracy I99I; Tracy &
CouplandI99I). Goals of talk that relateto building,modifying,or dissolv-
ing personalrelationships,and, on the otherhand,thosethat haveto do with
the definitionand redefinitionof own and others'identitiesas interactingbe-
ings, are no less intrinsicto the enterpriseof talking.
This suggeststhat it is quite wrongto isolate a discoursemode that em-
bodies relationalclosenessas some partialor minoract of communication.
As Malinowskihad it, phatic communionmay on the contrarybe what is
communicatively a most humanprocess.Phaticitymay be best seenas a con-
stellationof interactionalgoals that are potentiallyrelevantto all contexts
of humaninterchange.Yet in the majoritytraditionof analysis,thereare in-
terestingallegiancesto capitalistand patriarchalethics. "True"communica-
tion is assumedto be gearedto productiveand efficientachievementthrough
the businessof exchangingseriousinformation.Thisis the criticalstandpoint
from which some feministwritersembraceratherthan resistthe notion of
female gossip.
Laver
In what is the richest post-Malinowskitreatmentof phatic communion,
Laver(I974, 1975, I98I) shifted analyticattentionback onto the positive,
relationalvalue of phaticcommunion,particularlyin the sequentialorgani-
zation of openingand closing phasesof interactions.An importantpart of
his contributionis to taxonomizewhathis datashowto be the maximalstruc-
ture of "stages"(nonverbaland verbal)in each openingand closing phase.2
But it is Laver'sinterpretationof the discoursefunctioningof phatic com-
munion that is most compelling.Laverfound openingphases in conversa-
tion to fulfill first a propitiatoryfunctionin defusingpossible attributions
of hostilitythroughsilence.Thereis also an exploratoryfunctionin the ten-
tative nature of such exchanges.Laver suggestedwe tend to avoid phatic
communionin transactionalsettings(thoughsee laterdiscussion),whichled
him to supposethat one functionof phaticcommunion,whenit does occur
211
COUPLAND, COUPLAND, AND ROBINSON

here, is indexicaland uncertainty-reducing. In Goffman's (I959) terms, it


helpsparticipantsestablisha "workingconsensus."Third(thoughthis clearly
relatesto the second),Laverfoundthat phatictalk servesthe initiatoryfunc-
tion of gettingthe interactionunderway.
In closing sequences,reinstitutingphaticcommunioncan mitigatepossi-
ble sense of rejectionand consolidatea relationship.Thesepurposescan of-
ten surfaceas the explicittopicsof conversation-closingutterances("it'sbeen
nice talking to you"; "be seeing you soon"). Laver's perspectiveechoes
Jakobson's(I960) taxonomyof six functionalcategories,in whichthe phatic
functionis takento focus on the channelcharacteristics of interactionin es-
tablishingand maintainingsocial contact.3(We refer later to Hymes'sim-
portantcritiqueof Jakobson'staxonomicapproach,as it articulatesthe need
for the negotiativeperspectivethatwe endorse,especiallyin the empiricalsec-
tion at the end of the article.)
The underlyinggoals of phatictalk are seen as establishingrelationships
and achievingtransition.Becausethese togetherare definingcharacteristics
of ritualactivities,phaticcommunionfor Laverfalls withinthe scopeof this
generalcategory.Laverwillinglyacknowledgedthe debt his theoreticalpo-
sition owes to Firth's(1972) workon greetingand partingas ritualand pat-
ternedroutines.But again, ritualsequences,Laversuggested,are far from
purposelessand desemanticized.Thereis the basicconsiderationthat all ut-
terances,phaticor otherwise,meancontrastively by beingdifferentiatedfrom
otherpossibleutterances,or from silence,in the contextof theiruse. Hymes
(personalcommunication)also notedthat "evenif the whatof a ritualis pre-
dictable... thereis informationin the how. In a perfunctorymanner,with
feeling, haltingly,masterfully,respectfully,disrespectfully."Laveralso ar-
gued that the linguisticform of a phatic initiativeboth constrainsthe the-
maticdevelopmentof the interaction(i.e., it is sequentiallymeaningful)and
confers crucialindexicalmeanings(i.e., it is socially diagnostic).
Laverthen introduceda speculativepredictivemechanism,specifyinghow
speakersare able to stake claimsabout solidarity/intimacyand statusrela-
tionshipsthroughparticularencodingchoiceswithinphatictalk. This insight
wouldseemto havefoundits full flourishingin Brownand Levinson's(1978,
I987) politenessmodel and in their suggestionthat culturalgrandrites find
theiroriginsin conventional,local demonstrationsof person-respecting and
relationalmanagement.

A NEGOTIATION PERSPECTIVE

Thereis littleto be achievedfromsettingthe traditional,Malinowski-derived


"smalltalk"perspectiveand Laver'sfunctional,prosocialperspectivein op-
position to each other. In some respects,Malinowskiand Laveraddressed
(or assumed) independentranges of interactionalsituations. Malinowski
212
NEGOTIATING PHATIC COMMUNION

wrote, for example,about nativevillagefiresidechats among friendsor co-


workers;the centralevent modeledin Laver'sanalysisseems to be chance
meetingsof acquaintances,wherethe managementof progressivephysical
approximationallowsa real-time,stagedanalysis.Laverwas reasonablyspe-
cific about the contentsand exchangesequencesthat comprisephatictalk in
his sense:formulaicgreetings,referencesto factorsnarrowlyspecificto the
time and place of the utterance(e.g., the weather,the meeting/gatheringit-
self), or factorspersonalto speakeror listener.Malinowski,too, mentioned
greetingsexchangesbut was generallymuch less specific.
Neitherapproach,as it happens,offers muchcross-cultural insight,though
the functionsof phaticcommunionareclearlyhighlyvariableacrosscultures.
Bauman(I983), for example,commentedon Quakercommunicativeideol-
ogies accordingto whichlanguagemay be viewedas carnaland inadequate
for "true"communication,predisposingthe avoidance of routine, face-
respecting,honorific,andotherwisephaticresources(see also Davies I988).4
Hymes (1972:40) cited communities,such as the Paliyans of south India,
whereveryverbal,communicativepersonsare regardedas abnormalor even
offensive(see also Basso 1970). It is not difficultto envisagesituationswhere
the phaticityof utterancesis a matterof culturaldefinitionand wherecri-
teria for definingforms of talk as phaticor otherwisewill differ across so-
cial groups. (This is an issue we returnto in consideringtalk across the
generations.)
There is also a level of determinismthat limits both approaches. For
Malinowskiand Laveralike, a divisionof discoursemodes into phatic and
nonphaticis unproblematical. Eachassumesthat the qualityof phaticity"re-
sidesin" language-in-useand that it is detectablein its surfaceform. Yet the
characteristicsand functions taken to define phatic communionseem un-
workablybroad for detectingthis particular"it." From the multiplegoals
perspectivewe referredto earlier,we might see the fringesof interactionas
a naturallocus for relationalgoals to be foregrounded- that is, as sequences
wherea phaticdesignor "frame"for talk (Goffman I974) is particularlysa-
lient. On the otherhand, by this account,phaticcommunionwouldceaseto
be associateduniquelywith the fringes of encounters(Laver)or extended
chatting(Malinowski,Cheepen)and we shouldexpectto find instanceswhere
a relationallydesignedand perhapsphatic mode of talk surfaceswhenever
relationalgoals becomesalient- even withinsequencesof transactional,in-
strumental,or task-orientedtalk.
As for the "smallness"or "mereness"semanticthat, as we saw, manypeo-
ple have taken to be primaryin definingphaticcommunion,it again seems
appropriateto arguethat all interactionshows degreesof reticenceor with-
held commitmentto openness,seriousness,and truth. Prototypicallyphatic
discoursewill certainlyinvolve a suspensionof commitmentto a speaker's
own factuality.This is presumablywhy some of the clearestphatic tokens
213
COUPLAND, COUPLAND, AND ROBINSON

are utterancessuch as greetingsexchangesthat carryno referentialmeaning


(e.g., hello, good morning,goodbye). But at the same time, nonphaticus-
age does not achieveunsulliedopenness,truth, and relevanceeither. If in
phatic communionthere is a preferencefor positivitythat, as Malinowski
suggested,mightlead to false expressionsof interestin and engagementwith
a speakingpartner,we must recognizethat this can be true of talk in very
many contexts of interaction(Coupland,Giles, & WiemannI99I).
At this point, it is valuableto follow Hymes'scritiqueof Jakobson'stax-
onomy of speechfunctions. Jakobson(I96o) had acknowledgedthe multi-
functionalityof individualspeechevents, and even acts, but proposedthat
"the verbalstructureof a messagedependson the predominantfunction"
(120). However, Hymes (I968) arguedthat, "the definingcharacteristicof
some speecheventsmay be a balance,harmoniousor conflicting,between
morethanone function.If so, the interpretation of a speecheventis far from
a matterof assigningit to one of seventypes of function"(120). Although
phatic communion"canbe taken as a kind of alternatingor reciprocalex-
pressivefunctionof speech"(I2 I), Hymesarguedthat thereneedbe no sim-
ple link betweenthe phaticfunctionand the existenceof contactor rapport.
"Messagesto establish,prolongor discontinuecommunicationmay neither
intend nor evoke a sense of communion;theremay be a clearchanneland
no rapport"(ibid.).
It followsthat we shouldexpectto tracestrategicvariationalonga dimen-
sion of adjudgedrelationalpositivityor accommodation(Giles, Coupland,
& Couplandi99i), reflectingtalk-participants' local prioritiesfor theirown
talk and hearers'perceptionsof others'priorities.So again, phaticcommu-
nion cannot be definedas a type of talk, thoughthe termcan still locate an
intriguingclusterof sociopsychological orientationsto talk, alongat leasttwo
key dimensions.Figurei is an attemptto illustratesocialsituationsthat may
typically,howevergrossly,be associatedwith differentprioritiesfor talk in
termsof expressedor perceivedcommitmentto opennessand truth(the ver-
tical dimension)and the degreeof foregroundingof relationalgoals (hori-
zontaldimension).Whatis of crucialimportancehereis thatno singlespeech
event (let alone speechgenre)can be adequatelycharacterizedin theseterms
and that the phaticityof any one utteranceis a matterfor on-the-groundne-
gotiation by participantsas talk proceeds.
What we are discussinghere as degreesof commitmentis capturedvery
clearlyin Fawcett's(I984) systemiclinguisticmodel of communicativepur-
poses, wherephatictalk is portrayedas an option in the "oblique"(as op-
posed to "straight")semantic system (see Figure 2). Fawcett aligned his
categoryof obliqueutterancesor texts with whatGrice(I975) termed"flout-
ings" - of his maximsof quantity,quality, relation,and manner.Oblique
usage subsumes"play"and "ritual."Whereasplay gives access to a huge
rangeof semanticsubsystems(and Fawcettrecognizedthat these are likely
214
NEGOTIATING PHATIC COMMUNION

Degree of expressed/ perceived commitment


(to open disclosure, seriousness, factuality, etc.)

high

TROUBLES-TELLING . SYMPTOM TRANSACTIONAL


AMONG INTIMATES . TELLING TALK (e.g.
IN MEDICAL booking a
* ENCOUNTERS ticket)

Pos;iti'v
relat iQonal foregrounded ............ ................... backgrounded
goals8

PHATIC DRUNKEN
COMMUNION BANTER

70w

FIGURE I: Interactional dimensions locating phatic communion.

to represent the norm rather than the exception for communicative inter-
change), the ritual subsystem gives entry only to phatic and ceremonial
purposes.
What is important (for our purposes) in Fawcett's conceptualization of
obliqueness is his argument that all oblique actions must be analyzed "at two
levels," in that "there are often two ways of reacting to such messages"
(I984:4I). They may be intended either "ostensibly"or at an "ulterior"level.
Fawcett's further notion of "variability in the strength of purpose" (47) is
helpful in allowing us to break out of the either/or (straight or oblique, non-
phatic or phatic) designation that is firmly implied by the systemic model-
ing of choices in Figure 2. As Fawcett commented, "it is not that we are not
sharing information when we say nice day but it looks as if it may rain soon,
but that the informational purpose is rather weak" (47).
From the negotiative perspective that we wish to argue for (first on theo-
retical grounds and then on the basis of the data analyses to follow), the
function of particular sequences of talk as phatic or otherwise should not be
preconceived. Relevant analytic questions are whether, how, and when talk
is oriented to as phatic or not, contingent upon its local sequential placement
in particular contextualized episodes and on the momentary salience of par-
ticular interactional goals. Important further possibilities are that participants
in talk may orient differently at one moment, among themselves but also in-
dividually at different moments, to the phaticity of an utterance. That is, we
want to suggest that phatic communion may be negotiated relationally, and
215
E ? o K E = ^ o~~~~~l
o > sN C

Q ;t

= * s Q Cm = O0
= C ? E = C

_
X _ -
i T !
T S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

.
I
0
D

cv~~~~~~~~~~~~~)r*

| .= ,,
8~~~~~~6
.,_ ?'l -D

$4
sW E
A *
J-Ev>

DI _~~~~C
s ? e
NEGOTIATING PHATIC COMMUNION

in real time. A sequenceof what we mighttermphatic exchangemay quite


feasibly be constructedout of qualitativelydifferentparticipantroles that
may themselvesshift in the course of a single utterance.
Beyondthis and in line with Fawcett'sarguments,a more strategicanal-
ysis is necessary,allowingfor the possibilitythat phatictalk can be engaged
in dissimulatively,with an inherentand often valuableambiguity.We could
ask how, if it is so conventional,desemanticized,and uncommitted,phatic
communioncould ever be relationallysuccessful.The answermight be that
the relationalutility of phaticcommunioncenterson the conventionaland
uncommittedbeingableto masqueradeas the genuineand committed.A key
characteristicof talking phaticallymay thereforebe not so much that it is
inherentlysuspectbut that it managesto disguisethe extent to which com-
mitmentis being made or withheld.In contrast,the consensusapproaches
we have reviewedattributelittle strategicsophisticationto interactantsand
assumethey entertainquite differentevaluativestandardsfor phaticversus
other modes of talk. They also assume that interactantsemploy a simple
switchingmechanismin and out of modes that are built on radicallydiffer-
ent presuppositionsabout the semanticvalue of utterancesand speakers'
commitmentto them.

"HOW ARE YOU? "

Whatwe call "howareyou?"(HAY?)utterancesare a classof conversational


moves that needsto be delimitedas to preciseforms and functionsbut that
has clearphaticpotentialaccordingto the criteriawe have been discussing.
The moves achieve some minimalthresholdof relationalengagementand
commonlyoccur in conversationalopenings, often as prequelsto transac-
tional discourse.Bergerand Bradac(I982) commentedthat how areyou? is
often not intendedto produceself-revelation"butrathermerely [emphasis
added]to signalacknowledgementof the other"(82). They also commented
that literalistinterpretationsof how are you? are the basis of an old joke
(ibid.).
A: how are you?
B: I have bursitis;my nose is itching;I worryabout my future;and my uncle is wearinga
dressthese days.
But perhapsthe fact that HAY?occursroutinelyin at least some serviceen-
countersitselfsuggeststhatthe relationaloverturecan be less committedthan
it appears.5We are all awareof how easy it is to embarkinappropriately on
personaldisclosure(and of coursenot as
necessarily facetiously as in the con-
structedsequencegiven)whenwe take a cursoryand routinizedhow areyou?
openingas a "genuine"effort to elicit an appraisalof health or well-being.
Not surprisingly,manyearliertreatmentscite HAY?utterancesas centralex-
amples of phatic communion.
217
COUPLAND, COUPLAND, AND ROBINSON

On the otherhand, in line with earliercommentsabout dissimulationand


ambiguity,we wantto suggestthat in verymanysocialencountersHAY?ini-
tiationsdo and indeedmustpurportto elicithealth/well-being appraisalsand
may in fact function in this way, particularlyamong friendsand nonnew
acquaintancesbut also in othercontexts.Althoughnonverbaland prosodic
accompanimentsto HAY?may give cluesto the degreeof commitmentem-
bodiedin the initiation,HAY?will often fail relationallyif its formulaicness
is made apparentin its encoding.Therefore,HAY?will inevitablyproveto
be an excellentplace to trackthe negotiationof phaticcommunionin real-
time discourseevents.The startingassumptionfor the empiricalanalysesin
this sectionis that respondingto HAY?involvescomplexinferencingby the
heareraboutthe relationaland othergoalsof the speakerwho makesthe elic-
itation, and assessmentsof the appropriatenessof intimateself-disclosure
from momentto moment- and thesein relationto both participants'appre-
ciation of prevailingsituationalnorms.
HAY?sequenceshavebeenan explicitresearchfocus in conversationanal-
ysis. Sacks(1975) gave a brief but brilliantaccountof HAY?as a "greeting
substitute"(68) that may replaceas well as follow an exchangeof greetings
in "a minimalproperconversation"(66). HAY?can elicitinformationabout
"personalstates"(mattersof mood, appetite,or sleep)and/or "valuestates"
(typicalevaluativetermsin responseto HAY?wouldbe great, OK, or lousy,
which Sacks saw as exemplarsof positive, neutral,and negativeresponses,
respectively).Theseconstructsarethen usedto commenton sequencingcon-
straintsin conversationsfollowingHAY?Sackssaysthat an answerfrom the
neutralsubsetof value statesmakesno furtherinquiriesappropriate.But a
lousy responseappropriatelyand directlylaunchesa "diagnosticsequence"
(70) in a why?or what'sthe matter?next move, whichmay itself lead to an
accountingmove. A positive response(wonderful!)may launcha recipro-
cal expressionof delightor a different why?inquiry.
Sack'sargumentthen runsthat there are regulationsgoverningwhat in-
formationshould properlybe disclosedto whom and when (e.g., within a
family,to a doctor,or to a priest).Therefore,beforeselectingour responses
to HAY?we monitorour responseoptionsin lightof theirprobablesequen-
tial implicationsfor how talk will proceedthereafter.So, whereasHAY?may
be "themost askableof questions,"it is the answererwho has to legislateon
the appropriateness of subsequentdisclosure."Thesystemof regulationsin-
volves not a potentialasker'sdeterminationof whetherhe could handleany
informationbut, instead, an answerer'sdeterminationof whethera given
askercan receivethe particularinformationor handleit now" (73). And it
is in thesetermsthat Sacksconcludedthatour appreciationof conversational
mechanics(and, in particular,sequencingconstraintsafter HAY?)can lead
us to denythat we are feeling,for example,lousy. As in the title of his chap-
ter, we have an instanceof the "everyonemust lie" condition.
218
NEGOTIATING PHATIC COMMUNION

Sacks'sperspectivehas been followed up in a seriesof articlesby Jeffer-


son (I980, I984, I985) on troubles-tellingsequencesthat we referto in the
interpretationof our own data (see also the discussionof Jefferson'swork
in the appendixto Coupland,Coupland,& Giles I99I). Schegloff(I986) also
consideredthe sequencingof HAY?as it is embeddedin the canonicalstruc-
ture of telephoneopenings.He arguedthat HAY?sequences,whichare of-
ten reciprocalin his data, "have an overt topic-priorityrelevance:they
providea formal early opportunity[in telephonecalls] for the other party
to makesome currentstateof beinga matterof joint priorityconcern"(i 18).
Schegloff'scommentaryon responsesto HAY?largelyderivesfrom Sacks's
earlierobservations.
Sacks'schapterhas clearlydemonstratedthe sortsof negotiativeworkthat
are involvedin respondingto HAY?in conversationgenerallyand it is a key
foundationfor the empiricalstudywe outline. It nonethelessinvolvesa cer-
tain idealizationof conversationalsequencesthat, as we find, provesdiffi-
cult to matchin actualconversationaldata. First, it is importantto Sacks's
argumentthat the three response-options(positive, neutral, negative)are
"mutuallyexclusive,"becauseeach is predictiveof laterconversationalevents
(1975:70). (Schegloff[I986:130] refinedthis claim somewhatby considering
how prosodicvariantsof HAY? may influenceresponses,but he accepted
the basic three-wayclassification.)Second, he has to assumethat we know
what is the truthfulresponseto HAY?in any one instanceif we are to devi-
ate from this truth strategically;he wrote that, "the answersto How are
you? are things you know on your own behalf"(72). The data we consider
show that establishingphatic/nonphaticmodes of talk is indeeda complex,
structuredprocess,but one in whichspeakersfeel theirway towardor away
from the phaticityof their conversationalexchangesthroughanythingbut
pure, categorizableresponses.We also raisethe possibilitythat negotiating
a responseto HAY? is more than a simple act of self-disclosure(true or
false) and is in fact a creative act toward establishing "how we are"
developmentally.

"HOW ARE YOU?" IN INTERVIEWS ABOUT ELDERLY HEALTH

In health-relatedcontexts,we arelikelyto find a latentpredispositionto give


and receiveHAY?in predominantlynonphaticterms- that is, as a medically
associated,diagnosticelicitation.But even here, and giventhat medicalcon-
sultationsneed to be boundedwith initiatoryand perhapsparticularlypro-
pitiatorytalk (to defuseanxietyand establishrapport),HAY?will still need
to be negotiated,and phatic processesare likely to presentthemselvesfor
analysis.We assumethat even when a HAY?elicitationis adjudgedto be a
bona fide requestfor a medicallyframedassessmentof own-health,a re-
spondent(in the patientrole) may still find reasonto move into his or her
219
COUPLAND, COUPLAND, AND ROBINSON

and tentatively,respectingface concernsand po-


self-disclosureprogressively
litenessnorms. That is, theremay be a predispositionto initiatenonphatic
self-disclosureof health and well-beingphatically.
Whereelderlyrespondentsare involved, the balanceof phatic and non-
phatic processesin self-disclosuremay also be influencedby group predis-
positions.In earlierwork, we foundthat elderlyspeakersdid tend to behave
more disclosivelythan youngeradults, at least in the group'spropensityto
discloserelativelymore and moreintimate"painful"experiencesto first ac-
quaintances,manyrelatingto own-health(Couplandet al. I99I; Coupland,
Coupland,Giles, Henwood,& WiemannI988). We werethereforeparticu-
larly interestedto examineresponseselderlypeople make to HAY?elicita-
tions in circumstanceswherehealth is a salientissue.
The medicaland gerontologicaldimensionsof the interviewcontextthat
we now come to describewill predictablypredisposeultimatelynonphaticre-
sponseseven to a phaticconversationalopening.So, we anticipatedthat the
data wouldhighlightthe negotiativeprocessesthat Sacksidentifiedand that
we have arguedare involvedin establishingthe phatic/nonphaticqualityof
talk in social situations.
We thoughtthat a single,scriptedversionof how areyou? wouldvariably
trigger phatic (conventional, desemanticized,nonparticular,non-health-
relevant)or nonphatic(particularized,health-relevant)self-disclosuresand
that nonphaticresponseswould in many cases be fashionedincrementally
from phatic beginnings.The particularfocus of the following analysesis
thereforeon how participantsin the interviewsachievethe transitioninto
"full"disclosivehealth-relatedtalk (wherethey do this) from a supposedly
phaticHAY?initiation.The generalrelevanceof the studyis to demonstrate
that phaticityneeds to be viewedas a qualityof interactionalorganization
and situation-construingratherthan as a "mode"or "type"of talk per se.

METHODS AND DATA

The corpus we draw on is a seriesof interviewswith 4o elderlypeople (34


womenand 6 men) aged 64 to 90.6 All werevolunteerswho attendeda Day
Center(social club) in Cardiff, United Kingdom;the interviewswere con-
ducted at these centers.We asked people to be involvedin a surveyof ex-
periences of health care, making it clear that the interviewerswere not
themselveshealthpractitionersor healthspecialistsof any sort. In eachcase,
a volunteerwas escortedto an interviewroom by a researcher,shown to a
seat, introducedto one of the threetrainedinterviewers,then askeda series
of preparedquestionson the subjectof experiencesof healthcare. The first
verbalmove made by interviewerswas a supposedlyphaticelicitation:how
areyou? said smilingand uniformlywithoutany clearprimarystress.Volun-
teers werealloweda full turn at talk in responseand receivedonly nonver-
220
NEGOTIATING PHATIC COMMUNION

bal backchannelsupportup to the end of the turn. We concentratehere on


these responsesto the scriptedquestion. (The second question was how is
your healthgenerally?with a supplementaryquestionif needed:areyou re-
ceiving treatmentfor any healthproblemsat the moment?The third ques-
tion was do you see your GP [generalpractitioner/physician] often ... are
you seeinghim or her at the moment?The fourthand final questionwas do
you think doctors generallyprovide good health carefor elderlypeople?)
In the discussionthat follows, brieftranscribedfragmentsfrom the inter-
views are attributedto speakersidentifiedby fictionalizedinitials. In other
currentwork, we are concernedwith variationin Position I (PI) utterances
(i.e., the encodedforms of HAY?)in medicalsettings;in the presentstudy,
attentionis of course directedexclusivelyto Position 2 (P2) utterances(re-
sponses to HAY?).

RESPONSES TO HAY?

In the health-and age-salientcontextof the interviews,it is alreadyinterest-


ing that a few uncontroversiallyphaticallyorientedresponsesdid emerge.
Thanking
BE: alright thank you
CB: oh I'm fine thank you
Whenthankingoccurs, it displaysa projectedbelief by the respondentthat
the Position I utteranceshowssomewhatunexpectablepersonalconcernand
hence impliesthat the PI utterancewas heardoutsideof a specificallymed-
ical frame(withinwhichconcernis expectable)and interpretedas partof so-
cial ritual.Thisgivesriseto blandpositiveappraisalsplus thankingformulas
that are sufficientlyroutinizedto be consideredthe unmarkedresponseto
HAY?elicitations(see Brown& LevinsonI987). Positiveappraisalswithout
thankingsseem to be more readilyinterpretablein a medical frame.
BG: oh I I'm fine (i.o) yeah

Unqualifiednegativeresponses
At the otherextreme,some responsesto the HAY?openingin the data (and
rememberthat we aretranscribingresponsebeginningshere)arebluntlyneg-
ative self-appraisals,clearlymakingexplicitreferenceto somaticor psycho-
logical problems.
FM: not very happy (.) and not very well
DE: I'm a long-standing asthmatic
BB: well I've got everything wrong with me (.) my legs yeah everywhere even my fingers
AD: erm (.) I got (.) rheumatoid arth (.) arthritis is in my legs and they're terribly painful
This preparednessto disclose negativelyvalenced,intimateinformationto
nonfamiliarsin first encountershas been consideredcounternormative(see
Berger& BradacI982), thoughit is entirelyconsistentwith our earlierfind-
221
COUPLAND, COUPLAND, AND ROBINSON

ings from differentdata sets involvingdemographically similarelderlypopu-


lations(seethe earlierreferences).The responsesjust citedweremadestarkly,
withoutany qualifyingor mitigatingconsiderationsor accounts.Theirmed-
ical specificityand the face threatthey entailis good evidenceof theirnon-
phatic orientation.
Dimensionsof hedgingin HAY? responses
The vast majorityof the initialresponses,however,hoverbetweenwhatcan
be consideredphaticand nonphaticacts of telling.We wantto highlightthe
key processesof qualificationor hedgingthat the datadisplay.Wearguethat
the rich resourcesfor producinghedgedresponsesto HAY?shouldbe seen
as tracesof phaticity,even in this health-and age-salientsetting, in elderly
people'sself-appraisals.We do not elaborateon prosodicvariationin the re-
sponses,thoughthesecan, of course,be crucialto theirinteractionalimpact
and deserveextensivefurtheranalysis.

Filledpauses. Respondentsoften prefacethe report/self-appraisalwith


a markerto indicatethat whatthey say is reflectiveand perhapsdifficultto
formulatein simpleterms(see also HeritageI984, and SchiffrinI987:86ff.,
on oh-prefacedresponses).Hencewe find manyfilledpauses(oh; well;erm;
etc.) and the utterancepostqualifier(a local dialect feature)like:
AB: oh (.) not too bad [there are five initial ohs]
AL: well (.) up and down like you know [there are ii initial wells]
DM: not too bad like

"Goodnews, bad news"formats. Lookingmore to the discourseorga-


nizationof initialHAY?responses,we find that manyadoptgood news, bad
news formats, counterbalancingmore positive and more negative self-
appraisalswithin single utterancesor over adjacentutterances.
AP: I'm alright (.) I do suffer with my nerves though I get injections every month (.) but
I (.) I'm going on fine
In thesecases,thereis quiteextreme,real-timevariationin the positivity/neg-
ativity of the appraisal,capturedvery well in Jefferson'sanalysesof how
troublestellers"unpackage"initial "glosses"about their own states in dis-
closiveevents(I985). It is interestingthat the developmentalsequenceat the
beginningsof these responsesis alwaysfrom a morepositivefirst gloss to a
more negativenext phase;bad news, good news formatssimplydo not oc-
cur as responseopeningsin the data. In our terms, the extentto whichthe
initial gloss is at odds with subsequentdisclosureis some measureof how
muchthe initialresponseshowssuspension(of commitment,veracity,etc.),
and hence a degreeof phaticity.
HAY?responsesareveryoftenorganizedas mini-narratives of the self. Per-
sonal narrativesare interestingpartlybecauseof the potentialthey offer for
222
NEGOTIATING PHATIC COMMUNION

representingalternativeversionsof the self: the self as evaluatedprotagonist


withinthe narrativeat the same time as the self as evaluatingnarrator(cf.
Potter& WetherellI986; Shotter I984). We might speculatethat the narra-
tive distancingof the protagonistself from the narratormay offer the teller
(and the hearer)some protectionfrom a threateningnegativeself-appraisal.
However,our main point is that tellersare able to hedgenegativeresponses
by locatingparticularexperiencesof ill healthwithina narrativeof somatic
ups and downs (a special case, then of good news, bad news).
AB: oh (.) not too bad (.) awful in the mornings and then I'm alright in the afternoon
(laughs)
AW: not too bad (.) I got a cold coming but still (.) that'll come and go won't it
CE: not too bad (.) I had a bad day er Saturday (.) arthritis arth arthritis in my knee (.)
I don't know I only went down the street to get some food for Sunday and (.) I had
a job to get back home but it's better today
Indeed, the verticality metaphor itself that Lakoff and Johnson (I980)
showedto be ingrainedin English- pervasivelydesignatinggoodness/bad-
ness, happiness/sadness,health/infirmity,and so on - is very frequentlyin-
voked. Repondentsfrequentlyprojectthemselvesas skateboardingover the
hills and dales of healthexperiences,improvingor declining,perhapsocca-
sionally keepingstable on plateausof well-being.A typical invocationis:
AL: well (.) up and down like you know

Qualifiedinitial negative(global)appraisals. The not too bad formula


is very common (see also previousinstances).
AC: not too bad
CJ: well I'm not so bad
AS: well (.) could be better
AM: not too bad not too bad (.) can't grumble I suppose
CM: not too bad love (.) could be better I suppose (.) it's no good grumbling is it? (laughs)
BF: coming on [it transpires she has had a major bladder operation]
The generalstrategyhereis to orientto a negativeappraisalor circumstance
but deny its full force to varyingextents. The noncommittaleffect, raising
an agendaof troublesbut being seen to hold back from espousingtroubles
as "theway thingsare,"perhapsexplainshow the phrase"not too bad"has
become conventionalizedas a HAY?response,at least in our own cultural
contexts. The relatedand equallyconventionalcan't grumbleand mustn't
grumblesimilarlycommunicatethat theremight be or are salientgrumble-
able issues,just as we haveseenthat Jefferson'sgloss in troublestellingmay
orientthe hearerto the presenceof unspecifiedtroubles. In an elderlycon-
text, can'tgrumblemay implya mutualexpectationthat the respondentwill
predictablyhave cause to grumble,at her age. Musn't grumbleor no use
grumblingor no good grumbling(all of whichappearin the data)implyac-
ceptanceof the degenerationstereotype(see Coupland& Coupland I990).
These detailedinterpretationsare somewhatshaky, however,as a resultof
223
COUPLAND, COUPLAND, AND ROBINSON

the conventionalizingof politenessformulas.Mustn'tgrumblemay well have


mergedsemanticallywith can't grumblein that it does not necessarilynow
assertgrumbleablecircumstances.
Another way of mitigatingthe impactof initial negativeappraisalsis to
give informationon specificmedicalcircumstancesin the form of accounts
(cf. Fisher& Groce i99o), and specificallyasjustifications,for an initialneg-
ative appraisal.
AE: well not very well I've just had a bad fall
AA: well I'm (.) not feeling (.) very well at all I've got the arthritis of the spine
AH: not very well love (i.o) I suffer from awful er (.) depression for one thing I'm on (.)
on my own (.) all the week except for one one gentleman (.) friend of ours (.) of my
husband's (.) late husband and myself calls about two evenings a week for about an
hour each time you know (.) oh it r really gets you down especially this weather (.) long
dark days (.) you know (.) and I do get desperately depressed

Explicitlyrelativizedappraisals. The implicitassessmentof how one is


relativeto expectablecircumstancesin laterlife can be made explicitas an-
other strategyof hedgingself-appraisals.Elderlypeers, presumednormal
decrement,or specific ailmentsare all invokedas relevantcontextualcon-
cerns. For example, an evaluationof well-beingcan be expressedrelative
to the progressionof a specific disease, or an age-span,or some presumed
norm, as in the "goodfor my age"and "aswell as can be expected"formats
that are often used by elderlypeoplein tellingtheirage (see Couplandet al.
I989).
AF: fine (.) well a (.) few aches and pains like everybody else (.) but still (laughs)
BT: oh quite good really (.) I mean um (.) considering you know I mean er all I get (.) now
this morning my finger went right off dead although I had gloves on . . .
EM: erm (.) not too bad (.) no (.) not on top of the world but none of us are are we (.) no
(.) but when you come to eighty-threeyears of age you can't expect ((to be like)) a spring
chicken can you
BM: well I'm alright (.) I don't grumble (.) I'm eighty-one
AG: I got a cold (.) in the fashion
BD: not too bad love (.) keeping stable
BJ: well I'm breathing (laughs)
In all of these utterances,thereare appealsto extenuatingcircumstancesfor
the appraisal.Whereit is a negativeappraisal,it is againmitigated.The last-
quoted instanceimpliesan appraisal(probablyfacetious)relativeto a pos-
sible expectationthat the teller should not even be alive.

Laughter. Laughteritself can often mitigatenegativity,and more spe-


cificallythe negativeface threat(in Brown& Levinson'sterms)of the dis-
closure, wherephaticityis a more normativeresponsemode.
AR: not very well (i.o) (chuckles) (i.o) I haven't been well now for a long time
BH: (breathes in) quite well (laughs) I hope
In Jefferson's(I984) interpretation,laughterby tellers(usuallylocatedaf-
- that they are
ter an act of troublestelling)indicates"troubles-resistivity"
224
NEGOTIATING PHATIC COMMUNION

able to cope with the troublesin question.But in the presentdata, laughter


appearsto indicaterecognitionthat the negativityis deeply felt and mutu-
ally face-threateningto disclose. If this is a plausibleanalysis,then laugh-
ter needs to be seen as a further resource for hedging; respondentsare
conveyingthat they ought to be more troubles-resistantthan they are. If
laughterachievesa momentarysuspensionfrom the impactof troublesome
life circumstances,it is by one criterionphatic.In othersocialcontexts(e.g.,
among young, sociallyprivilegedconversationalists),flagrantlyfloutingthe
normof positivityby producinga P2 utterance,suchas appallingor terrible,
is such an infringementof normsthat it is liable to be taken as humorous.

OVERVIEW AND IMPLICATIONS

Responsesto HAY?in the data presentedall show variability.But withinthe


wide rangeof possibleresponseoptions, thereis some evidenceof interview-
ees respectinga preferencefor non- or at least hedgednegativityin these re-
sponses. Even though our volunteerswere made awarethat the interviews
wereestablishedto pursuequestionson a medicalagenda,and despitetheir
beingelderlyand often havingspecificill-healthconcernsto divulge,we find
that a systematicallyphaticorientationis integratedinto verymany of their
initialresponses.Intervieweesfind manyoverlappingstrategicmeansto hold
back, at least initially,the full force of theirnegativehealthexperiencesand
to mitigatethe face threat(to themselvesand their hearers)that they entail.
Thesetwin processes- of suspensionand relationalforegrounding- are ones
that are centralin definingphatic talk, as we arguedearlier.
At the same time, any claimsabout preferenceorganization(in the sense
of Sacks'sand other conversationanalysts'use of the term) as it relatesto
the patterningof responsesto HAY?- but also, we think, elsewhere- need
to be circumspect.It is clear from the existingconversationanalysislitera-
ture on preferencestructure(e.g., Sacks I987, and the four chapterson this
topic in Atkinson & Heritage I984) that (I) conversationanalysis sets its
sights (and very explicitlyin Sacks I987:58) on decontextualizedconversa-
tion and its inherent"mechanisms";(2) claims are often made about pre-
ferredsequenceswithoutsystematicconsiderationof contraryinstances;and
mainly(3) the notion of preferenceitself needsto-be explainedfurtherin so-
cial and relationalterms - that is, why do social actors (when they do) re-
spect or ignore preferencerules?
In the context of a putativepreferencefor nonnegativityin responseto
HAY? and referringto the points just listed:
I. We have evidencein data from geriatricmedicalconsultationsthat we
are now examiningthat, at certainpointsin a consultation,participants
who may well have shown such a preferenceearlyin the encounterdo
orientto doctors'HAY?-typequestionsnonphaticallylateron. Thatis,
225
COUPLAND, COUPLAND, AND ROBINSON

there is some sort of agreement(by no means uniform or simple to


identify)as to whenHAY?is intendedto elicitthe tellingof symptoms,
problems,and so forth, and whenit is thereforeappropriateto respond
with medicaldisclosures.So, whateverpreferencetheremightbe, it is
only apparentat certainjuncturesin an interaction(perhapstypically
early on). Preferenceis established,if at all, contextually.
2. The presentarticlereportssome instanceswherethereclearlyis no ac-
knowledgedpreferenceto be nonnegative(see the section of Unquali-
fied NegativeResponses),evenin the firstturnof the interview.Hence,
we would not want to treata preferencefor phaticresponseto HAY?
as endemic in the mechanismof (all) conversation.Also, the Sacks
(1975) chapteron lyinggivesus no reasonto believethat he himselffelt
that positiveresponsesto HAY?are alwaysor intrinsicallypreferredto
negativeones. Rather,he gave a relativelycontextualizedaccountthat
recognizesdifferenttruthconditions(is a respondentfeeling"lousy"or
"fine"?)and differentperceptionsof appropriateness (is the questioner
someone to whom troublesare properlydisclosable?).
3. We agree with Brown and Levinson (I987:38) that what have been
claimedas preference-ordered sequencesare betterexplainedin terms
of facework.So, to the extentthat some elderlyintervieweesresistgiv-
ing initiallynegativeself-appraisalsin responseto HAY?it is probably
becausethe unloadingof personalmedicaltroubles(e.g.) is face-threat-
ening to both parties.But as we have arguedelsewherein relationto
troubles telling (Coupland et al. 1991:127ff.), there are some elderly
people for whomotherpriorities(e.g., felt indignationor bitternessor
a desire to disclose cathartically)supercedethe need to respect face
needs. A medicalcontext would again alterthe predictableweighting
of face threatsin telling personaltroublesor ailments.
In any case, we are far from claimingthat responsesin the interviewdata
are themselvesphatic. For the most part, these responsesare systematically
ambiguous,as respondentsgenerallyrefuseto committhemselvesto single,
global self-appraisals.Rather,they tend to opt for multiplyqualifiedstate-
ments and hedges and rapidlyshiftingjudgmentsof their own well-being.
This may simplybe because,contraryto whatSacksexplicitlyclaimed,"how
we are"is itself not amenableto summarizingor even to knowingin any ra-
tional terms,in youth let alone in old age. Butjust as importantly,respond-
ents often seem to need to leave the degree of (in Fawcett'sterm) their
"obliqueness"unclear,hoveringbetweenthe conventionaland the factual.
As we discussedearlier, this very indeterminacymay be the hallmarkof
phatic communionand the key to its social utility.
A mode of discoursethroughwhichwe are sanctionedto behaveformu-
laicallyand yet meaningfully,veridicallyand yet not absolutelyso, will have
uniquebridgingpotential- relationallyand interactionally.In the interviews
226
NEGOTIATING PHATIC COMMUNION

we examined, most elderly volunteers were able to embark on accounts of


their (usually negative) experiences of health and health care while still to an
extent respecting the potentially ritualized nature of the initial question they
were asked. We have tapped into rather complex discourse processes for ne-
gotiating phaticity that we can only presume will be even more elaborate in
more neutral social situations.
We think that the more general question of how phatic and transactional
priorities are merged in, for example, service encounters and institutional set-
tings is one worth pursuing. Even in relation to HAY? utterances, it will be
of interest (in aspects of our current work that we referred to earlier) to see
what use medical professionals make of would-be phatic openings in consul-
tations and how forms and contexts of elicitation moves, and what follows
them, achieve phatic and nonphatic goals. Again, what sociolinguistic re-
sources do practitionershave for fulfilling relational goals during medical ep-
isodes? Ragan (I99I) has recently shown how nurse practitioners can use
verbal play to this effect during gynecological exams. Quint (I965) found that
many nurses tended to make small talk the sole focus of their conversations
with patients, steering clear of talk about medical issues and associated prob-
lems (see also West & Frankel I99I).
These questions impinge directly on caregiver-patient relationships and the
political issue of whether medical and other caring episodes can and should
achieve "interpersonal"or "social"as well as professional goals (Fisher I99I).
In gerontological studies, for example, it is widely held to be necessary to
move from symptom-based treatment to holistic care of older people (Giles,
Coupland, & Wiemann I990). This ideology requires practitioners to blend
medical and relational concerns, and implementing it has much to do with
sociolinguistic skills and strategies. We would like to think that this is one
of the more fruitful potential arenas in which Malinowski's original concept
of phatic communion could be put to work in the future.

NOTES

I. Severalpeoplehavecontributedto the developmentof the perspectivewe take in this ar-


ticle and to the gatheringof the data on whichthe empiricalsectionsare based. Theseinclude
KarenGrainger,KarenAtkinson,KarenHenwood,and HowardGiles.Gatheringthe interview
datawe drawon laterin the articlewaspossiblethroughan EconomicandSocialResearchCoun-
cil awardto HowardGiles and Nikolas Coupland(grant00222002).
2. Within opening phases, for example, Laver (I974) identified (i) establishing mutual eye
contact,(2) exchangeof (nonvocal)gesturesof greetingor acknowledgment,(3) assumingfa-
cial expressionsof attention,(4) reachingthe appropriateproximityfor talk, (5) exchangeof
conventionalcontactgestures(shakinghands, kissing,etc.), (6) takingup mutualbodily ori-
entation, and (7) the exchange of stereotyped linguistic symbols.
3. Jakobsonspecifiedsix dimensionsof communicativeevents:referential,emotive,cona-
tive, metalinguistic,poetic, and phatic.
4. Culturalnormsfor the managementof phaticsequencesin fact appearto varyquitedra-
matically.As one example,we can speculativelyidentifya markedpreferencefor exuberant,
227
COUPLAND, COUPLAND, AND ROBINSON

positiveaffect in greetingsamongmiddle-class,white(perhapsparticularlyfemale)studentson
NorthAmericanuniversitycampusesand contrastthis witha generalizedUnitedKingdomstu-
dent or nonstudentnorm.
5. Weshouldagainnote that evenin WesternAnglo contexts,thereis clearvariationin the
normativeness of HAY?.Serviceencounters(otherthanthe most cursory)on the westcoastof
the UnitedStatesappearto requireHAY?or one of its variantsas a firstmoveby the server,
whereassimilarencountersin the UnitedKingdomdo not openwith HAY?Moreover,the giv-
ing of HAY?and its responsedo havean affect on relationaldevelopment,howeverroutinized
it may appear.For example,havingbeenthrougha HAY?exchangein a U.S. west coast gro-
cery store seemsto predictmoreextensiveinterpersonalinteractingbetweenserversand their
that as-
customerson futureoccasions.Thereis a dangerin stronglyrelativisticinterpretations
sume that differentculturalnormsare necessarilyfunctionallyequivalent.
6. We havereportedpatternsof age disclosurein this corpusas partof anotherarticle(see
Coupland,Coupland,& Giles I989).

REFERENCES

Abercrombie,D. (I956). Problemsandprinciples.London:Longman.


Atkinson,J. M., & Heritage,J. (eds.). (I984). Structuresof social action:Studiesin conversa-
tion analysis.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Basso, K. (1970). To give up on words:Silencein the WesternApacheculture.Southwestern
Journalof Anthropology26(3):2I3-30.
Bauman,R. (I983). Let your wordsbefew: Symbolismof speakingandsilenceamongseven-
teenth-centuryQuakers.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Beinstein, J. (I975). Small talk as social gesture. Journal of Communication 25:I47-54.
Berger,C. R., & Bradac,J. S. (I982). Languageand social knowledge:Uncertaintyin inter-
personalrelationships.London:EdwardArnold.
Brown,J., & Rogers,E. (I99I). Openness,uncertainty,and intimacy:An epistemologicalre-
formulation.In N. Coupland,H. Giles,& J. Wiemann(eds.), "Miscommunication"andprob-
lematic talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 146-65.
Brown,P., & Levinson,S. (i978). Universalsin languageusage:Politenessphenomena.In E. N.
Goody (ed.), Questionsandpoliteness.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. 56-289.
(I987). Politeness:Someuniversalsin languageusage.Cambridge: CambridgeUniver-
sity Press.
Cheepen,C. (I988). Thepredictabilityof informalconversation.London:Pinter.
Coupland,N., & Coupland,J. (i99o). Languageand laterlife. In H. Giles& W. P. Robinson
(eds.), Handbookof languageand socialpsychology.Chichester:Wiley.451-70.
Coupland,N., Coupland,J., & Giles,H. (I989). Tellingage in laterlife: Identityand face im-
plications.Text9(2):I 29-51.
(I99I). Language,society,and the elderly:Discourse,identity,andageing.Oxford:Ba-
sil Blackwell.
Coupland,N., Coupland,J., Giles, H., Henwood, K., & Wiemann,J. (I988). Elderlyself-
disclosure:Interactionaland intergroupissues.Languageand Communication8(2): I09-33.
Coupland,N., Giles, H., & Wiemann,J. (eds.). (I99I). "Miscommunication" andproblematic
talk. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.
Davies,A. (1988).Talkingin silence:Ministryin Quakermeetings.In N. Coupland(ed.), Styles
of discourse.London:CroomHelm (Routledge).I05-37.
Fawcett, R. P. (I984). Languageas a resource. AustralianReview of Applied Linguistics
7(I): 17-56.
Ferguson,C. A. (i98i). The structureanduse of politenessformulas.In F. Coulmas(ed.), Con-
versationalroutine.The Hague:Mouton. 21-35.
Firth,J. R. (1972). Verbalandbodilyritualsof greetingand parting.In J. S. La Fontaine(ed.),
The interpretationof ritual. London:Tavistock.I-38.
Fisher,S. (I99I). A discourseof the social:Medicaltalk/powertalk/oppositionaltalk?Dis-
courseand Society 2(2):I57-82.

228
NEGOTIATING PHATIC COMMUNION

Fisher, S., & Groce, S. B. (I990). Accounting practices in medical interviews. Language in So-
ciety I9(2):225-50.
Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland, N. (eds.). (i99i). Contexts of accommodation: Devel-
opments in applied sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Wiemann, J. (eds.). (i99o). Communication, health,and theelderly.
Proceedings of Fulbright Colloquium 1988. Manchester: University of Manchester Press.
Gluckman, M. (I963). Gossip and scandal. CurrentAnthropology4(3):307-I5.
Goffman, E. (I959). Thepresentationof self in everydaylife. New York: Doubleday.
(1974). Frameanalysis. New York: Harper & Row.
Grice, H. P. (I975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and seman-
tics: Volume_;: Speechacts. New York: Academic. 41-58.
Heritage, J. (I984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M.
Atkinson& J. Heritage(eds.), Structuresof social action:Studiesin conversationanalysis.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 299-345.
Hudson, R. A. (I980). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, D. (I968). The ethnography of speaking. In J. A. Fishman (ed.), Readings in the so-
ciology of language.Mouton: The Hague. 99-I38.
(1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D.
Hymes(eds.),Directionsin sociolinguistics:
Theethnographyof communication.
Oxford:Ba-
sil Blackwell. 35-7I.
Jakobson, R. (I960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press. 350-77.
Jefferson, G. (I980). On "trouble-premonitory" response to inquiry. Sociological Inquiry
50:153-85.
(I984). On the organisation of laughter in talk about troubles. In J. Atkinson & J. Her-
itage (eds.), Structures of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 346-69.
(I985). On the interactional unpackaging of a "gloss." Language in Society I4:435-66.
Jones, D. (i99o). Gossip: Notes on women's oral culture. In D. Cameron (ed.), The feminist
critiqueof language:A reader.London: Routledge. 242-50.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (i98o). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laver, J. (1974). Communicative functions of phatic communion. Work in Progress (Univer-
sity of Edinburgh, Scotland) 7:1-17.
(1975). Communicative functions of phatic communion. In A. Kendon, R. M. Harris,
& M. R. Key (eds.), The organization of behavior in face-to-face interaction. The Hague: Mou-
ton. 215-38.
(I98I). Linguistic routines and politeness in greeting and parting. In F. Coulmas (ed.),
Conversationalroutine. The Hague: Mouton. 289-304.
Leech, G. (1974). Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Malinowski, B. (I923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. Supplement to C. K.
Ogden & I. A. Richards, The meaning of meaning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
146-52.
(1972). Phatic communion. In J. Laver & S. Hutcheson (eds.), Communication in face-
to-face interaction.Harmondsworth: Penguin. 146-52.
Matisoff, J. A. (1979). Psycho-ostensive expressions in Yiddish. Philadelphia: ISHI.
Mills, J. (I989). Woman words. London: Longman.
Osman, S. (I983-84). A-Z of feminism. Spare Rib. London.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (I986). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and be-
haviour. London: Sage.
Quint, J. C. (I965). Institutionalized practices of information control. Psychiatry 28:I9-32.
Ragan, S. L. (i99i). Verbal play and multiple goals in the gynecological exam interaction. In
K. Tracy & N. Coupland (eds.), Multiple goals in discourse. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
67-84.
Robinson, W. P. (1972). Language and social behaviour. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Sacks, H. (I975). Everyone has to lie. In M. Sanches & B. G. Blount (eds.), Sociocultural di-
mensions of language use. New York: Academic. 57-80.
(I987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation.

229
COUPLAND, COUPLAND, AND ROBINSON

In G. Button& J. R. E. Lee(eds.), Talkandsocialorganisation.Clevedon:Multilingual


Mat-
ters. 54-69.
Schegloff, E. (I986). The routineas achievement.HumanStudies9: I I I-5I.
Schiffrin,D. (I987). Discoursemarkers.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Schneider, K. R. (1987). Topic selection in phatic communion. Multilingua 6(3):247-56.
(I988). Smalltalk:Analysingphatic discourse.Marburg:Hitzeroth.
Scollon, R. (I985). The machinestops:Silencein the metaphorof malfunction.In D. Tannen
& M. Saville-Troike(eds.), Perspectiveson silence. Norwood,NJ: Ablex. 21-30.
Shotter,J. (I984). Social accountabilityand selfhood. Oxford:BasilBlackwell.
Spender,D. (I98o). Man madelanguage.London:Routledgeand KeganPaul.
Tannen,D., & Oztek,P.C. (I98I). Healthto our mouths:Formulaicexpressionsin Turkishand
Greek. In F. Coulmas(ed.), Conversationalroutine.The Hague:Mouton. 37-54.
Thomas,A. P., Bull,P., & Roger,D. (I982). Conversational exchangeanalysis.Journalof Lan-
guage and SocialPsychology1(2):141-56.
Issueslinkinggoalsanddiscourse.
face-to-faceinteraction:
Tracy,K. (ed.).(i99i). Understanding
Hillsdale,NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Tracy,K., & Coupland,N. (eds.). (I99I). Multiplegoals in discourse.Clevedon:Multilingual
Matters.
Turner,G. (I973). Stylistics.Harmondsworth: Penguin.
West,C., & Frankel,R. M. (I99I). Miscommunication in medicine.In N. Coupland,H. Giles,
& J. Wiemann(eds.), "Miscommunication"and problematictalk. NewburyPark,CA: Sage.
i66-94.
Wolfson,N. (I98I). Invitations,compliments,and the competenceof the nativespeaker.In-
ternationalJournalof Psycholinguistics8:7-22.

230

You might also like