“When we talk, it never materializes”: Functions of off-record communication in conflict talk

Abstract

Drawing on the recent contribution to the studies on linguistic impoliteness (Bousfield 2008), this chapter aims at examining and describing the role of “the inarticulate” in interpersonal conflict, with particular attention devoted to the dynamics of conflictive exchanges. “The inarticulate” is by all means a non-academic term referring to a range of off-record strategies such as silence, “wordy silence”, i.e. “a torrent of words that are not addressing the true issue” (Tannen 1990), white lies, compassionate untruths, concealments, speaking in quotes, etc. Understanding what is meant but not said involves a necessity to work out implicatures, but how easy is it to retrieve speaker intention in conflict situations? In light of the study of mental context in interaction (Kopytko 2002), one may attempt to identify the impact of the cognitive, affective and conative states and processes on the expression and perception of the above mentioned (non)verbal behaviors. With regard to conflict dynamics, the presentation will consider the emerging doubts about the Cooperative Principle; namely: is it always necessary to keep talking? Given the role of the mental context, how uncooperative is “the inarticulate”? Following the recent interest in discourse stylistics, especially in the relatively uncharted analysis of dramatic dialogues, the author will select conflictive exchanges between family members from modern American plays, e.g. by Eugene O’Neill, Tennessee Williams or Arthur Miller.