THE ROLE OF PHATIC COMMUNICATION IN SHAPING SOCIAL COHESION IN PROFESSIONAL AND INTERPERSONAL INTERACTION
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
The aim of the study is to identify the functional and interactional characteristics of phatic communication that contribute to the formation and maintenance of social cohesion in professional and interpersonal interaction. The article examines the linguistic and pragmatic realization of phatic utterances in various communicative contexts, focusing on their role in establishing, sustaining, and regulating social contact. Within an interactional framework, such structural phases as openings, transitions, and closings are identified and analyzed as key domains of phatic communication. The scientific novelty of the study lies in its integrative approach, which for the first time systematically connects phatic communication with interaction design and social cohesion. The results of the study demonstrate that phatic communication is not a marginal or auxiliary phenomenon but a core interactional mechanism that supports communicative alignment and cooperative relations. At the same time, the use and interpretation of phatic forms are influenced by sociocultural norms, leading to variation in their pragmatic value across professional and interpersonal contexts.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
phatic communication; social cohesion; professional interaction; interpersonal discourse; communicative alignment
2. Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press.
3. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press.
4. Fox, K. (2005). Watching the English: The hidden rules of English behaviour. Hodder & Stoughton.
5. Holmes, J. (2005). When small talk is a big deal: Sociolinguistic challenges in the workplace. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender. Blackwell. Pp. 344-371.
6. Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2015). Power and politeness in the workplace (2nd ed.). Routledge.
7. Jakobson, R.O. (1975). Linguistics and poetics. In E. Ya. Basin & M. Ya. Polyakov (Eds.), Structuralism: “For” and “Against”. Progress. Pp. 193–231.
8. Jakobson, R.O. (1981). Linguistics and poetics. In S. Rudy (Ed.), Selected writings. Vol. 3, Mouton. (Original work published 1960). Pp. 18–51.
9. Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
10. Locher, M.A., & Watts, R.J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), Pp. 9–33.
11. Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning. Routledge. Pp. 296–336.
12. Malinowski, B. (1972). Phatic communion. In J. Laver & S. Hutcheson (Eds.), Communication in face-to-face interaction (p. 146). Penguin Books.
13. Nemets, G.P. (2001). Modal meanings of phatic utterances. Philological Studies, 3, Pp. 109–110
15. Shaw, G.B. (2003). Pygmalion. (Original work published 1913).
21. Vincenzi, P. (1999). Almost a crime. London, UK.