Pevneva I.V.
Kemerovo institute
(branch) of Russian state university of trade and economics, Russia
The realization of
communicative strategies in conflict pedagogical discourse
The study
of national specifics of communication in conflict discourse presents a very
actual issue. The problem of effective communication covers a row of issues on the
border of ethno-psycholinguistics and theory of communication. This research is
devoted to study of specifics of communicative strategies realization in
discourse of American students in course of the educational process. Analysis
of verbal behavior in conflict situations in pedagogical discourse seems to be
very actual since the discourse activity is complicated with status and role
distribution in course of communication between a teacher and a student.
According to the data
which we received from psycholinguistic experiment held in different institutions
of higher professional education in 2008 in Pennsylvania, USA (246 American students of the average age of 20 years took part in the
experiment), we can state the following
specifics of appeal to communicative strategies of cooperation, distancing or
confrontation.
The verbal reaction
of American students to the comment of the professor concerning the grade «Sorry, but I can only give you a C on this paper»
cause the following verbal reactions of students: most of reactions are
represented with the realization of cooperative communication strategy, more
exact, by tactics of agreement, promise and offer: «Ok, that’s fair”, “Would you please explain why it is a C paper”, “Ok,
I’ll work harder next time”. Verbal reaction realizing the strategy of
distancing («ok», «that’ll do», «say nothing»)
and those, which represent the reaction of confrontational strategy are the
minor part and may have the following examples: «I think I deserve a better grade», «I would like to correct my work»,
«Could prove you are right on this point?»
The analysis of proportion
of verbal reaction with realization of communicative strategy of cooperation, confrontation
and distancing showed that 8% of respondents preferred the communicative
behavior in the confrontation discourse development, 63% of respondents
appealed to verbal behavior of cooperation and 36% chose the realization of
distancing. Thus, the priority in conflict discourse development was given to the
realization of cooperation. It should be noted that this realization doesn’t depend
on the status of interlocutors; it could be a professor or a student. The
examples of realization of the cooperation can be presented by following
answers: “Could you please explain the reasons for this grade so I could
improve?”, “ I understand, I’ll do better next time”, “Could you please explain
me what’s wrong with it?”, “ If that’s what I deserve, that’s ok”, “That
is fine, I deserve a C”, “Well ok then”, “Is there anyway I can redo
this paper?” etc.
The most probably expected verbal reactions from the professor also are
presented by cooperation communicative strategy: “Ok, what exactly you don’t understand?”, “How can I help you understand the stuff?”, “ Why don’t we set
up a meeting time so we can go over it”, “ Stay after class and I will help
you”, “What specifically are you getting stuck on?”, “Do you have some extra
time, we can go over what you don’t understand”, “Let’s set up a date and we
can figure it out together”, “Let me help you understand”, “What don’t you
understand I’ll explain…”, “ You are welcome to my office later and I will try
to explain it to you better”, “Read it over again and come to me”, “What do you
need help with , let me see if I can help?”, “Let me help clarify..”, “Ok, well,
why don’t you look over things again and then come to me and I can try to
explain what you still don’t understand”, “You can refer to here for more
info”, “Ok, stop by my office hours and I’ll help you”, “Let’s meet after
class”, “Come during office hours”, “Which part exactly is not clear?”. The expected verbal reaction of disagreement
or distancing present insignificant percent of the total answers and may have
the following verbal forms: “Find someone
who does”, “Read it one more time”. Alike the expected verbal reactions from
the professor given as an answer to student’s discontent about the grade,
mostly are presented with cooperative “face-saving” answers, in spite of the
vertical communicative balance (difference in status) . For example (teacher to
a student):“I am afraid you didn’t reach your
full potential”.
The model with provocation to conflict development from the professor’s
part caused the largest number of negative verbal reactions. We can distribute them
into the following groups:
1. The verbal reactions of confrontation, sometime with the use of
invectives or colloquial phrases: “That
is none of your business”,“ You are rude”, “You have no right to talk to me lifeabout”,
“Stay out of my personal life, you r a professor teach and stop being a jerk”,
“That’s my business, not yours”, “My love life is none of your damn business”,
“ You have no control over my life and what I do so I will do what I want”, “My
love life and what I am thinking about is none of your business”. “Please stay
out of my personal life”, “You should teach better, I am paying to take this
class”, “I am not thinking of my love life, and I have two other jobs besides
this one - so back off.” “Not a job since I pay to go” “You are a bitch”.
2. The verbal reactions with the use of softening construction or “face-saving
devices”: “Please don’t talk about my
personal life in class”, “I don’t think this statement was really professional.
I would appreciate some respect”, “That was inappropriate for you to say”, “That’s
uncalled for. You should be helping me”, “Life is not all about studying”, “I
need to have a life as well”, “There is no reason for you to personally attack
me like that”.
3. Reactions of non-confrontation, including distancing and construction
“I understand, but…”: “ I’m sorry, but it is distracting to me”, “School
is a priority, but I have to balance my life”, “I’ll handle both, I will start
studying more”, “Yes, I understand that
but to assume I have no personal life is unreasonable” “I understand
that I’m a student, but there is also more to college than strictly academies,
it is a life experience” ”, “ I wish I could, but there is too much to think
about”, I have an actual job to pay for school”, “Not only is it my job to
study but I believe it’s my job to learn in social settings”, “ I am sorry, I
am alone and I don’t think about my love life”, “I am sorry, I know shouldn’t
let my personal life influence my academic life”.
4 Curt answers with realization of the communicative strategy of
distancing or agreement, by means of which a person avoids the arising verbal
conflict development: “Fine”, “I
understand”, “You are right”, “Ok, I agree”,“Yes, Sir!”, “I know”, “okey”, “I’ll study more”(promise), “Ok, I will
listen to your advice”, “Ok, I’ll try harder”, “ I would say nothing”.
The analysis of empirical material allows to state the priority of cooperative
strategy realization in the answers of American respondents in course of possible
conflict situations during the educational discourse. Nether the less, when the
situation presents a threat to the personality of a student or provoking for a
conflict, the part of verbal reactions of confrontation substantially
increases. As a part of research was done in written form, we can use the punctuation
of the written statement of some respondents to interpret their communicational
intent. For example, the exclamation mark in absent in most of reaction given by
American students in emotionally charged responses: “Please don’t talk about my personal life in class”, “You are rude”, “That
is none of your business” etc. High percent of application of modal verbs
in verbal reactions can signify the realization of efficient communication
within the rule “express yourself
indirectly”. Structures of this type underline the respect to the partner
and help to avoid categorical answers which potentially cause conflict: “Yes, I understand that but to assume I have no personal life is
unreasonable”, “I understand that I’m a
student, but there is also more to college than strictly academies, it is a
life experience” etc. The indirect
answers are also presented with use of shifting the emphasis from the addressee
to the addressor: “Do you think I could
redo this test”, “I would appreciate if you could help with this”.
It should be noted that the reaction expected from the professor in
conflict situation are not charged with manipulation strategy as it may be
expected in the situation of unequal social positions. Even during the “vertical”
communication, the person which possesses the higher status is inclined to demonstrate
the respect to the communicative partner (in our case the professor to a
student) and support his autonomy. The latter can be realized by different grammatical
construction such as: “Why don’t we set up a meeting time so we can
go over it”,“Yes, please see me after class so I can explain things to you” “Do
you have some extra time, we can go over what you don’t understand” , “You are welcome
to my office later and I will try to explain it to you better”. Verbal reaction of one-word structure such
as “Ok”,
“fine”, “I agree” are used by interlocutors for avoiding the development of
conflict in case if the speaker estimates his position as disadvantageous and
sees no sense in keeping his point. Such verbal reactions are presented in models
of provocation for conflict from the side of professor or advisor.
Literature:
1. Hall, E. T. Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French and Americans
[Text] / E. T. Hall. – Intercultural
Press, 1990. – 208p.
2. Field,
J. Psycholinguistics. The key concepts [Text] / J. Field. –Routledge publishing.
London, New York. – 2004. –366p.