Social Psychology Lecture 6 Social Psychology of Language Jane Clarbour (Spring 2002)

Social PsychologyLecture 6

Social Psychology of Language

Jane Clarbour

(Spring 2002)

Overview

1. Content Theory of equivocation

Avoidance-avoidance conflict Ratings of equivocation Threats to face

2. Style Speech accommodation theory

Accent convergence and divergence Postural congruence

3. Function Discourse analysis

Discursive action model Accountability

Objectives• Give an account of Bavelas et al.’s theory of

equivocation• Give an account of Speech Accommodation

Theory using empirical examples of accent convergence and divergence

• Demonstrate an understanding of what is meant by discourse analysis

• Give an account of what is meant by stake, interest, and accountability

• Discuss an example of a study based on discourse analysis

Key Reading

• Beattie & Doherty (1995) – Discursive construction of victims and perpetators

in Northern Ireland

• Giles et al. (1987) – Speech accommodation theory: the first decade

and beyond

• Henley et al. (1995)– Syntax, semantics, and sexual violence: agency

and the passive voice

The content of speech

• Equivocation (Bavelas et al., 1990)

– Avoidance-avoidance conflict– Types of replies– Ratings of equivocation– Equivocation theory– Threats to face

Equivocation (Bavelas et al. 1990)

• Circumstances in which people avoid replying to questions– Avoidance-avoidance conflict

• Telling truth = bad• Telling lie = bad

• Try to avoid both negative alternatives• Especially when telling the truth serves no real purpose..

Yuk!!!I appreciate your thoughtfulness!

Avoidance-avoidance conflict

• Conflict situations– e.g. students were asked to respond to following:

‘Another student in a small class, which meets three times for the entire year, has just given a class presentation. It was very poorly done – poorly prepared, and poorly delivered. After he sits down again, he passes you a note “How did I do?” you have to jot something down and pass it back to him. What would you write as an answer?’

Avoidance-avoidance replies

• Bavelas (1990) identified three types of equivocal, avoidance-avoidance answer:

– Subtle change responses (‘you were’ ‘it was’)

– Deferred replies (postponement)– Hints (but doesn’t answer directly)

Subtle change responsesChanges in speech content from

‘you were’ ‘it was’

• Changes the answer from the person to the presentation

It was okay, but there were things that could have been improved!

Deferred repliesPostponement

– Answers obliquely

– Changes the topic

“I wasn’t quite sure what you were getting at, but the idea

behind it was good”

“shall we meet later and talk about it over coffee?”

Indirect responses

• Hints (but doesn’t answer directly)

“You should have spent a little more time preparing for the presentation. It only needed a little more work to be a really good presentation”

Equivocation theory

• Communicative responses are dimensional– Responses including avoidance-avoidance

conflicts are more equivocal

Direct avoidance-responses avoidance

replies

Theory states that although it is the individual who equivocates..

Situational determinants

• It is the communicative situation that is the cause of the equivocation – Change of approach from the personality of

the equivocator to that of the situation

• So, although politicians are notorious for equivocation, they equivocate so much because they are so frequently placed in avoidance-avoidance conflicts!

Evaluation of equivocation theory

3 main criticisms:

1. Lack of theoretical basis

2. Causes rather than effects

3. Implicit vs non-replies• Implicit replies as highly skilled social skill

Threats to face (Bull et al. 1996)

• Self-presentation– ‘Threats to face’ create avoidance-

avoidance conflicts– politicians avoid responses that make them

look bad.• If a question is posed that makes a politician, colleague,

or the party look bad – avoid reply• If a question does not pose a threat to face – reply.

Speech styles

• Speech Accommodation theory– Studies of accent convergence

– Studies of accent divergence

Speech Accommodation Theory

• Based on BYRNE’s (1969) similarity-attraction theory– The more similar are our attitudes and

beliefs to another, the more likely it is that we will be attracted to them

– Speech is accommodated in order to reduce dissimilarites

Studies of accent • Accent divergence

– To disassociate from the listener the speaker may emphasise pronunciation dissimilarities

• Accent convergence– To gain another’s approval, the speaker

may reduce pronunciation dissimilarities Upward accent convergence Downward accent convergence

Studies of accent convergence

• COUPLAND (1984) – Observed accent convergence in a travel

agency.• Number of h’s sounded by assistant varied

from 3.7% to 29.3% • Significantly correlated with the proportion

sounded by her clients

Accent divergence (Bourhis & Giles, 1977) • Welsh students on Welsh language course…

– Ss asked to take part in a survey concerned with 2nd language learning techniques.

– Ss listened to questions posed by very English sounding tutor who at one point asked…

– Responses showed extreme accent divergence following this attack:

• Broadened their Welsh accent• Introduction of Welsh words and phrases• 1 Ss was silent – then produced Welsh expletive into the

microphone!

“Why on earth do you want to study a dying language with a dismal future?”

Experimental manipulation of convergence levelsGiles & Smith (1979)

• A Canadian male speaker prepared a series of tapes describing the educational system in Ontario for English speakers – The speaker accommodated in terms of 3 levels of speech

convergence:• message content

– (original length = 120 words / speaker added 85 words to elaborate on items)

• Pronunciation – (originally BBC/ to RP accent)

• speech rate – (normal rate = 145 words per minute / slowed down to 100

wpm)

– The tapes were rated by a group of teachers in England…

Communication Accommodation Theory (Giles et al. 1987)

• Nonverbal communication– The concept of speech accommodation has been

broadened out to include non-verbal communication

• Postural congruence SCHEFLEN (1964)

– People accommodate towards each others posture (mirror imaging)

– Similarity of posture may signal similarity of views or roles in a group

– Non-congruence of posture may indicate marked divergence in attitude or status

Discourse analysis

• How people perceive and interpret social interaction (especially communication).– But emphasis not simply on how individuals

construct reality based upon interpretation of situations

– Instead, a pragmatic consideration of the entire ‘whole’:

• the situation, the past history, future intentions, motivation, the roles of the individuals, what is said, what isn’t said

Discourse as a social construction…

• All language is considered by the discourse analyst as constructed– To make sense of experience– A production of an account in relation to something/someone – To convey an idea– To justify action– To impart blame– It is not necessary for the account to be consciously

constructed …or seen as true/untrue

A description of something to a friend or parent may differ – placing different emphasis in each construction

(Potter & Wetherell, 1987)

Discursive Action Model (Edwards & Potter, 1993)

• 3 major principles of discourse–Action –Fact and Interest–Accountability

Each contains 3 components…

Discursive Action Model (Edwards & Potter, 1993)

• ACTION

• Focus on action, not cognition– Attributions are discursive actions

• Not as perceptions or translations

– Attributions occur in ‘activity sequences’• They involve interpersonal issues:

– Blame, reward, invitation, compliment etc

• Attributions are elements in social activities

Discursive Action Model (Edwards & Potter, 1993)

• FACT and INTEREST

• Analysis of interest or motivation in the action sequence– Statements of factual accounts

• Truth portrayed through direct perception of account (e.g ‘I saw it…’)

– Descriptive accounts constructed– Selective accounts organised to represent a

particular rhetorical argument or perspective

Discursive Action Model

• ACCOUNTABILITY– Analysis of who/what originally caused

the event• Who is accountable for its occurrence?• How accountable is the current person in

the event?• How accountable is the reporter of the

event?

Discursive Action Model• Stake or Interest - how does the speaker

construct an account without appearing partisan or biased (which would reduce credibility)

• Accountability - Depending upon the function of the talk, speakers may emphasise or de-emphasis both their own accountability and the accountability of the other person– …for actions– …for accuracy– …for the interactional consequences of those accounts– …to claim (or disclaim) credit

Example of discourse analysis (Beatie & Doherty, 1995)

Eyewitness accounts (protestant) of an assassination & assassination attempts in N.Ireland.

John & Jean own a video shop in N.Belfast. The Irish Provisional Liberation Org. attempted to murder Jean in Oct ’91, and in Feb ’92 they returned and murdered her 16-yr-old assistant, William.

Jean’s construction of the attempted murder (Beatie & Doherty, 1995)

• Jean recalls the attempted murder… Car pulls up in front of her (factual presentation)

a) Going to say hello? (false, but credible, belief)

b) Simply a bad driver? (false, but credible, belief)

• Jean establishes herself as a credible witness– wouldn’t everyone think this…She is after all an

ORDINARY woman Vivid recall of events

JEAN IS DE-EMPHASISING HER STAKE OR INTEREST

Agency and the passive voice(Henley et al., 1995)

• Active voice– In the U.S. a man rapes a woman every 6

minutes

• Passive voice– In the U.S. a woman is raped by a man

every 6 minutes

“A woman was sort of raped in the parking lot

Summary• Theories of communication have largely

developed in isolation to each other– Equivocation theory

• Focus on the content of speech

– Accommodation theory• Focus on communicative style

– Discourse analysis• Focus on the communicative function• Verb voice changes the semantics of the

communication

Conclusions• Equivocation

– considered as a special form of accommodation as people equivocate in order not to diverge too sharply from their listeners

– Discourse analysts would question why

• Discourse analysis (DA) – is a philosophical and ideological approach to

social understanding based upon an analysis of the function of words.

– DA considers social interaction to be motivated, goal driven and socially constructed

What next..

• Practical 2 (Assessed)

Quantitative analysis of communication

• Lecture 7 – Focus on attitudes