Linguistic Analysis of Business Phone Calls
Analyzing Professional Phone Communication
This text analyzes a dialogue: an oral conversation between Michelle, a secretary at Mr. Hibberd’s office, and Peter Jefferson, a caller scheduling an appointment. This interaction serves as a rich example for examining various linguistic theories.
Ethnography of Speaking: The SPEAKING Model
Hymes’ SPEAKING model identifies eight components of linguistic interactions:
- Setting: A professional phone call during office hours, likely morning.
- Participants: Michelle (Mr. Hibberd’s secretary) and Peter Jefferson (caller seeking appointment).
- Ends: To schedule Peter’s meeting with Mr. Hibberd before his holiday.
- Act Sequence: Call initiation, Peter’s request, Michelle’s explanation/offer, appointment negotiation, agreement, and polite closing.
- Key: Formal, respectful, and polite.
- Instrumentalities: Oral, direct, and efficient.
- Norms: Appropriate turn-taking, no interruptions, cooperative, and courteous.
- Genre: Professional phone conversation for scheduling.
Speech Act Theory in Dialogue
Speech Act Theory examines multiple layers of meaning in conversation, including constative and performative aspects.
Constative and Performative Verbs
Constative verbs, describing facts or states, appear in expressions like ‘he’s in a meeting,’ ‘he’s away the following week,’ and ‘he’s free in the afternoon,’ providing information about Mr. Hibberd’s schedule. Performative verbs, executing actions through speech, include ‘can I speak,’ ‘I’d like to arrange,’ and ‘shall we say,’ directly performing actions like requesting or suggesting.
Felicity Conditions and Speech Act Dimensions
According to Austin, successful speech acts require specific Felicity Conditions: appropriate circumstances, roles, and correct execution. This conversation fulfills these: Michelle is authorized, the calendar check is appropriate, and the call concludes with a confirmed appointment.
Austin’s model also identifies three dimensions of speech acts: the locution (literal words), the illocution (intended meaning), and the perlocution (effect on listener). For example, Peter’s ‘I’d like to arrange an appointment’ has a locution (the statement), an illocution (a request), and a perlocution (Michelle checking the calendar and proposing a time). The dialogue primarily features directive speech acts, with Peter making requests and Michelle offering/confirming options to complete the task.
Politeness in Professional Interactions
Politeness is a key pragmatic feature, grounded in the notion of face, particularly negative face (the desire not to be imposed upon).
Negative Politeness and Face
The speakers use forms of negative politeness, such as modal verbs (‘could,’ ‘would’), softeners (‘I’m afraid’), and indirect questions (‘Can I speak to Brian Hibberd, please?’). Michelle’s tentative language and willingness to assist reflect awareness of social distance and workplace courtesy. Peter also maintains politeness, thanking Michelle and responding calmly.
Mitigators and Collaborative Communication
This demonstrates both participants managing their needs while minimizing imposition. Early Politeness Theory studies highlighted modal verbs and question forms as mitigators, clearly illustrated here as both parties collaborate while maintaining formality and professionalism.
Conversation Analysis: Structure and Flow
Conversation and spoken language are organized by turn-taking, which this dialogue clearly adheres to. Each speaker takes turns without interruption. Turns are relatively short and balanced, based on information exchange. The ‘floor’ (right to speak) is handled smoothly, with participants waiting for each other.
Turn-Taking and Adjacency Pairs
The dialogue contains many adjacency pairs, such as ‘Can I speak to Brian Hibberd, please?’ followed by ‘I’m afraid he’s in a meeting,’ and ‘So shall we say 4.15 next Wednesday?’ answered by ‘Yes, that sounds fine.’ These pairs provide coherence and structure the exchange around questions and responses.
Dialogue Moves and Interaction Style
There are also clear types of moves: the opening (Michelle answering), Peter initiating, Michelle responding (checking calendar), and the closing (agreement and farewell). The high-considerateness style is evident in the measured pace, lack of interruptions, and mutual respect. These features reflect a formal interaction between two participants with different roles and an asymmetrical power relation—Michelle controls access, but Peter, as a client or associate, is treated with deference and professionalism.
Conclusion: Effective Professional Dialogue
In conclusion, this conversation exemplifies a well-structured, formal workplace dialogue for appointment scheduling. It effectively illustrates principles from the Ethnography of Speaking, Speech Act Theory, Politeness Theory, and Conversation Analysis. Participants successfully communicate intentions through politeness, effective turn-taking, and mutual cooperation, maintaining professional discourse norms and achieving the appointment goal.