Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.2 Interactional Goals
Interactional goals are the goals that individuals have in either developing relational quality with their interlocutor(s) or transactional goals that involve substantive real-world goals. The intent of relational goals can be to affect an individual’s relationship with another individual, group, or community. Examples of transactional goals, on the other hand, can be obtaining written or verbal approval for something, asking someone to help to do something, or borrowing money.
Kasper (1990) sees these two goals as often being in sync with one another and relational goals often being the clutch that helps individuals accomplish or delimit their ability to accomplish transactional goals. “When this is the case, or when people want to achieve a particular relational goal, then the management of rapport can be very strategic”
(Kasper, 1990 in Spencer-Oatey, 2005, p. 107). Everts (2003) in her study, examined a family that used humor as a typical strategy to accomplish various interactional goals, one of which was to enhance rapport, which was achieved through solidary strategies to involve the entire family in the joking. This was seen as an effective strategy to lessen the interlocutors’ face sensitivities.
Humor can be useful and effective, however if the strategic relations are perceived the interlocutors may view the behavior negatively (Spencer-Oatey, 2005, p. 108). If the strategy is detected, then there is the possibility that the goal will be perceived as important and urgent, which will result in the interlocutor being more likely to make an allowance for the otherwise, inappropriate behavior.
However, if the interlocutor perceives the strategic relations, then they may view the behavior negatively. As a mitigator, however, if the strategy is detected and the goal is perceived to be important and urgent, then the interlocutor will be more likely to make allowances for the otherwise, inappropriate behavior (Spencer-Oatey, 2005, p. 108).
In section 2.2.1, we introduce behavioral expectations. Which will be further explained in terms of how interactional goals are evaluated in situ within 2.2.2; making up the third and final frame of judgment for whether rapport is managed.
2.2.1 Behavioral Expectations
Behavioral expectations are one factor that help people determine whether a face-threat is intentional or excusable (Spencer-Oatey, 2005, p. 109). Central to the issue of determining face threats and the resultant face loss is the interlocutor’s conception of what it means to be a friend. “Important insights into why people experience certain occurrences as face threatening can be gained by considering their underlying conceptions of societal rights–obligations” (Spencer-Oatey, 2007, p. 21). These rights or judgments about socially appropriate behavior are premised on a set of expectations. People’s behavioral expectations and the societal rights–obligations associated with them are derived from a range of sources: e.g., people’s conceptualizations of a given role relationship (Spencer-Oatey, 2007, p. 19-20). For an example of roles within relationships, Park (2010) studied the behavioral expectations of mothers and fathers while looking at gender equality. She explored the implicit associations subjects had between the female and male behavioral expectations of mothers versus fathers providing childcare versus working in an office. She found traditional stereotypes and also an implication of higher degree of difficulties for women to manage their work life alongside being a mother.
Behavioral expectations come from observations and personal determinations of what is prescribed or proscribed in various social environments.
Prescribed behavior relates to socially accepted actions and also to social obligations:
e.g., offering to help a friend move, or giving your seat to an elderly person or a pregnant woman. Proscribed behavior manifests itself in illegal or socially inappropriate behavior:
e.g., shoplifting, or ignoring a friend who is crying (Goffman, 1967, p. 7 in Spencer-Oatey, 2005, p. 98). A third type of behavior is permitted behavior. “It is behavior that is allowed, but neither technically prescribed nor proscribed” (Spencer-Oatey, 2005, p. 98). Certain
types of permitted behavior are not related to obligations or expectations but are regarded as socially desirable. Other types of permitted behavior are not socially relevant or affective and are thus ignored. However, common, expected behavior is considered obligatory.
Wentzel (2010) defined the behavioral expectations of a classroom. She marked aggressive, inattentiveness, or disruptive behavior as negative or maladaptive behaviors, whereas cooperativeness and socialization with other students, as well as self-regulation were considered positive. The students’ behavioral styles are decided by the degree to which students follow the social-obligations and expectations of the teachers and their classmates in the classroom.
When societal rights–obligations are not adhered to, then the interlocutor may consider the interlocutor’s action or lack thereof, rude (Spencer-Oatey, 2005, p. 98). Even though several types of behavioral expectations and sociality rights-obligations exist, they are contextually dependent, and vary due to the operations of several domains: i.e., a) type of illocutionary domain—i.e., speech acts); b) discourse domain—the way information is organized and the order in which it is presented: e.g., content and topic choice; c)
participation domain—the way participants interact: e.g., turn-taking; and their rights and
obligations, the inclusion or exclusion of people, and the (non)use of verbal and non-verbal responses; d) stylistic domain—the interactional styles speakers use: e.g., interactional frame, and register shifts; e) non-verbal domain—non-verbal communication: e.g., eye gaze, and proxemics Spencer-Oatey (2000, p. 20).In the next section 2.2.2, we will look at interactional principles. They relate to an individual’s values and/or beliefs, and “are scalar in nature and are very contextually dependent” (Spencer-Oatey, 2005, p. 99). The interactional principles consist of two
2.2.2 Interactional Principles
“Interactional principles are similar in many respects to conversational maxims except that they are more closely associated with values and/or beliefs, are scalar in nature and are very contextually dependent” (Spencer-Oatey, 2005, p. 99). Interlocutor’s interactional goals go through a strategic relations process. This process is checked by the previous two criteria mentioned in section 2.2.1: behavioral expectations as well as its constituent societal rights-obligations, and a third is the interactional principles that we will elaborate upon in this section.
The flexibility to attempt to reach interactional goals will be greater or lesser depending on the rapport between the participants (Spencer-Oatey, 2005, p. 100). As with behavioral expectations and societal rights-obligations, interactional principles: equity principle, and association principle affectively monitor strategic relations employed by interlocutors in a constant online observation of whether the interlocutor’s intended goal is fair and gives sufficient friendship privileges.
The first interactional principle, the equity principle, governs an individual’s belief about fairness and reciprocity, an individual’s entitlement to an equal level of treatment from others; autonomy control, an individual’s right not to be taken advantage of; and cost-benefit considerations, the cost-benefits an individual is entitled to receive and the judgment as to the appropriateness of the requirements placed upon the individual (Spencer-Oatey, 2005, p. 100). These factors create conditions that must be met or exceeded in order to maintain or enhance the individual’s face: e.g., special treatment should be reciprocal; and requests for help should be returned with offers to help.
The larger the request an interlocutor makes of an individual, the more important the appropriateness of the request. Hambling-Jones (2012) argued that while face is
interpersonally negotiated, it hinges upon the balance between our interactional wants and the wants of others (Hambling-Jones, 2012, p. 1119).
The second interactional principle is the association principle. It relates to an individual’s belief of entitlement to continuity in terms of their relationships with individuals, groups or communities. This principle has three components: 1) gauging whether the amount and type of involvement is appropriate; 2) whether interlocutor(s) express empathy, in terms of sharing appropriate concerns, feelings and interests; and 3) determining whether an appropriate level of respect is observable (Spencer-Oatey, 2005, p.
100).
2.2.3. Chapter Summary
In this chapter, we reviewed studies on friendships situated within emerging adulthood, face, and the constituent parts of rapport management: interactional goals and behavioral expectations. Emerging adulthood was explicated in further detail during the friendship section, in order to show the differences between the other age phases and emerging adulthood. This was done by showing examples from recent researchers’ studies, while tying them into the current research discussion. The historical background of politeness-face was discussed in order to better inform the study as to what aspects of politeness-face and
politeness will be looked at in the current study. Interactional goals were looked at in terms of the strategic relations that individuals use in trying to successfully achieve their
interactional goals. Behavioral expectations took into context these goals and began to look at how interlocutors judge whether strategic relations conveying interactional goals violate societal conventions appropriate to their level of relationship.
Chapter 3 will explicate how this rapport framework will interpret rapport dynamics within long interactional exchanges between emerging adults within the two novels.