hin.qxd


Aspects of Salience 
in Phatic Tokens

T he pragmatic perspective requires the study oflinguistic phenomena from the point of view of
their usage. Pragmalinguists define language  use as  “the
making of linguistic choices, taking into account the
mediating role of  both the utterer’s and the interpreter’s
m i n d s” (Verschueren, 1999:187). Pragmalinguistic
analysis assigns an essential role to consciousness in
language use, trying to reveal different levels of linguistic
knowledge – conscious, subliminal or automatic (i.e.
unconscious) – in the process of production and
interpretation of speech. 

Acknowledging the   role of cognition  in the
process of verbal interaction, we agree with
J.Verschueren who states that “not everything that

happens in linguistic behaviour occupies the same place in consciousness”
(Verschueren, 1999:173 ). It is, therefore, not surprising that verbal interaction can be
associated with different points of consciousness. Thus, in certain stereotypical
situations and previously planned speech events ready-made conversational formulae
and  practiced structures are put to use with no conscious effort: the speaker
automatically reproduces these speech tokens or he just repeats the stored knowledge,
adapting it  to the actual needs of communication with the help of spontaneous
recognition. Accordingly, in non-stereotypical situations creativity and conscious
outwork - cognizant usage of linguistic structures and forms - are necessary to make
the linguistic choices. In this case the speaker necessarily exercises  quite a different
mental action  which, according to cognitive psychologists, requires more conscious
operations than spontaneous recognition - active recall. 

In the present article I shall be concerned with the problem of  actual choice of
linguistic units – the relation between generation of meaning and language use. I will  try
to show how different degrees of salience – conscious choice of words  for various
communicative needs – operate in the process of verbal interaction, enabling the
speakers to repeat ready-made phrases retrieved from memory or to create new  ones.
The analysis is based on the assumption that speech is a kind of social action governed
by  linguistic norms and stereotypes – ideas based on certain kinds of experiences which
symbolize some kind of general behaviour.

Speaking about language as a kind of social action, some analysts suppose that most
interlocutors share a certain amount of background knowledge about ‘proper’ behaviour
and the ‘right’ way to do things. J.Cutting, for example, assumes that  there are numerous
stereotypes – ideas that we have about the “typical” behaviour and characteristics of

37

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika

Shoushan Paronian



people or objects (Cutting J., 2002). Expanding on the problem of processing
(production of speech and understanding), G.Brown and G.Yule state that the latter
depends on activating a small part of background knowledge at a time (Brown, Yule,
1983). It follows that there must be some way in which knowledge is organized and
stored to allow easy access. This idea brings us close to the role of knowledge in speech. 

Trying to understand how knowledge of the world and language interact, discourse
analysts resort to certain findings in the field of Artificial Intelligence, namely to the
concept of  knowledge schemata – mental representations that try to modelize human
language competence and human knowledge. In principle, schemata are data structures
representing stereotypical patterns which we retrieve from our mental storage - memory
- and employ in our understanding of discourse.   

Research work carried out in the field of cognitive linguistics shows that the
knowledge the speakers  possess concerning social interaction via language is just one
part of their general socio-cultural knowledge. People create mental models based upon
dicourse, the situation and the purposes they have to serve: schemas, scripts, scenarios,
frames, mental models. These models   refer  to certain mental activities involved in
language use: perception (reading or interpretation), representation (production of
discourse), as well as planning (Clark H., 2002; Verschueren J., 1999; Ïàðîíÿí Ø.,
2003). All these activities, as we see, have to do with a single mental operation –
processing of information in memory. The most important conclusion we can draw from
all this is that  the search for proper strategies to speak enables the addressee to make use
of scripts, i.e. mental representations of activity or event types, stored in his memory in
the form of background knowledge. 

As I have already stated, my report deals with the problem of salience of linguistic
choices. I shall try to show the role of mental models in the process of communication
on the example of phatic tokens.  

First of all, it is necessary to clarify what we understand by saying ‘phatic tokens’.
It goes without saying that one way of analyzing language is looking at language in

terms of social functions it serves. In this case language can be seen as ‘social semiotic’
– a system of signs which serves the social organization and communicative
requirements of the human society. Such being the case, the terms “phatic
communication” and “phatic function”, introduced by B.Malinovsky and R.Jakobson,
can be treated as linguistic notions that deal with cultural and communal needs of
language users (Malinovsky B., 1936;  Jakobson R., 1975).

It should be noted that the linguists are unanimous in their evaluation of  the phatic
function of language. The latter is defined as the process of “opening and closing the
channel, checking that it is working for practical or social reasons” (Cook G., 2002:25).

Things are different with the interpretation of phatic communication. On the one
hand, it is customary to treat phatic communication as the conventional use of language
to open and close talk exchanges. Thus, some linguists assume that phatic
communication is information which the interlocutors exchange for the sake of
politeness. It is made up of statements that are aimed at the establishment, maintenance
and termination of verbal contact (Ïî÷åïöîâ Ã., 1981). It has also been proposed to

38

Armenian Folia Anglistika                                                                                  Linguistics 



limit  phatic tokens to instances of communicative initiation (greetings) that mark the
beginning of the conversation.

On the other hand, starting from a different theoretical basis, sociolinguists and
conversation analysts  have pointed out some more profound qualities of phatic
communication which enable them to serve the social needs of communication. On
account of this, phatic tokens have been treated as speech units that establish agreement,
unification and harmony in the process of communication. 

As we see, the first  approach focuses on the conversational-regulating aspect of
phatic communication:  phatic tokens are  treated as conventional linguistic signs, fixed
for certain procedural needs of communication. For example, Good morning; Good
evening; Hello; Bye, etc. 

The second approach comes to prove that phatic communication can also perform
a social-regulating  function: it  serves the social needs of communication,
establishing and  maintaining  social relationships through language use. The idea
about the social function of phatic tokens has been introduced  within the frames of
linguistic analyses. Thus, according to B.Malinovsky, “phatic communication is a
kind of speech in which the ties of agreement, unification are formed with the simple
exchange of words” (Malinovsky B., 1936:515). M.Halliday has also noted the social
aspect of phatic communication in his ideational function of language – the function
the language serves to establish as basis for cooperative action and social relations
(Halliday, 1975). Stressing the social facet of phatic communication, A.Capone
proposes a classification of phatic tokens which is based on the social factor. Thus,
he supposes that phatic tokens are ways of showing status by orienting comments to
oneself, the other or to the general or prevailing situation. Accordingly, he
distinguishes between three types of phatic tokens: 1.Self-oriented: phatic tokens that
are personal to the speaker (for example, asides like I’m not up to this or My feet are
killing me); 2.Other-oriented: phatic tokens that are related to the hearer (For
example, Do you work here?; You seem to know what you’re doing); 3.Neutral:
tokens that refer to the context or general state of affairs (Cold, isn’t it?; Lovely
flowers) (Capone A., 2003).

It should be noted that discourse analysts point out the importance of establishing
common ground and agreeing points of view in the process of communication. Such
being the case, it is currently accepted to distinguish between two functions of speech –
transactional and interactional. G.Brown and G.Yule, for example, include phatic
communication within the sphere of the interactional function whose aim is to establish
common ground between the interlocutors, to show solidarity and maintain social
cohesion, lacking cohesion of meaning. Thus, it is not far from likely that phatic
communication can be treated as language with no information content as it is non-
informative. Nevertheless, phatic tokens are undoubtedly important strategic means in
the process of communication since they do not simply function to keep the channel of
communication open: with the help of these strategic means the speakers maintain
agreement, harmony which is absolutely necessary for the successful management of
communication. With this view in mind, it is quite possible to treat phatic

39

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika



communication as a special kind of face-saving act arising out of needs of the
interlocutors.

As we know, one of the aims of Discourse Analysis is to establish tied and
meaningful component units within a linked and co-ordinated whole – discourse. For
this purpose different types of tied sequences - exchanges, transactions, adjacency pairs
have been submitted to pragmalinguistic analysis. The analysis of phatic communication
has revealed a special unit of tied utterances - phatic discourse. On this account, it is
customary to distinguish phatic discourse as a type of adjacency pairing that includes
routine greetings and partings, attempts to establish or check contact in face-to-face
interactions, on the phone or on a computer. Phatic discourse is said to be used either for
social reasons or for practical ones. If we treat verbal interaction as a special kind of
goal-oriented social action, we shall see that phatic communication is aimed at the
realization of situational goals (unlike other types of exchanges that are aimed at the
realization of certain communicative goals). Thus, one of the aims of phatic discourse is
to maintain and terminate verbal interaction. Let us consider the following adjacency
pairs which  contain almost automatic patterns of greetings, goodbyes: A: Good
morning. B: Good morning. A: See ya!  B: Bye. A: Hello. B: Hi. A: How are you? B:
Fine. These habitual, spontaneous adjacency pairs present sequences in which the
utterance of a first part immediately creates an expectation of the utterance of the second
part of the same pair. This implies that the exchange of remarks is carried out
unintentionally, mechanically, with no conscious effort. It should be strange to think that
speakers doubt, hesitate or even think how to answer a greeting or parting. These phatic
responses come out through spontaneous recognition of typical speech situations and
automatic production of necessary phatic tokens and, moreover, no conscious outwork
is required for the process of communication. Automatic verbal action, or, to be more
exact, verbal  action carried out on the subliminal level of consciousness, can also be
carried out for practical reasons. For example, A: Thank you. B: Thank you. A: Thanks.
B: You’re welcome. A: Could you help me with this? B: Sure.  A: Yeah.  B: Okay. 

Speaking about ease of processing, cognitive psychologists mention that the terms
that are automatically retrieved from memory possess a high degree of salience. Hence,
it would be reasonable for us to assume that the above mentioned samples of phatic
discourse including automatic patterns of greetings, goodbyes can obtain a high degree
of salience in the process of interaction. 

Certain adjacency pairs allow for variations in the forms which are used to fill in
the slots of the automatic communicative patterns. In this type of phatic discourse the
retrieval of the ready-made formulae from memory depends on a certain amount of
conscious outwork, taking into consideration certain linguistic and extralinguistic factors
of communication (sex, age, familiarity, mood etc.). On account of this, as we see, the
degree of salience is naturally reduced. For example, A: How are things?  B: The usual.
A: How are things going?  B: So so.  A: How are you doing? B: Not bad, thanks.
Therefore, foreign language teaching necessarily includes not only practising  these
ready-made formulae but also indicating their  appropriateness in different
communicative situations.  

40

Armenian Folia Anglistika                                                                                  Linguistics 



It has been stated that phatic discourse can also be aimed at the establishment
of social relationships and agreement between the interlocutors (Ïàðîíÿí Ø.,
2003). The latter do not pursue any communicative aims, they simply keep in contact
in order to enhance  tuneability, concord  and to create  an atmosphere of social
harmony. This type of phatic discourse is usually carried on at the beginning of the
conversation when the interlocutors need  some “communicative” time to  adjust  to
each other before entering into a more serious discussion. For example, in the
following exchange the “phatic” discussion of the gift helps the interlocutors to
establish agreement and enter into a conversation, having established certain positive
interpersonal disposition.

Betty (opens the gift): Oh, it’s beautiful. Max: It’s a Benrus –
that’s the top make. Betty: It’s so stylish. Max: Look at that band –
that’s fourteen- karat – not junk . Betty: It’s expensive. (W.Hanly,
The Light Bulb: 12).

There exists a set of topics for conducting  this type of  phatic discourse:  weather,
leisure, health. As we see, these topics are mainly associated with common knowledge
– i.e. what everyone knows. They are culture-loaded, which means that they present
specific national culture. They also vary from group to group, which means that they
present the socio-psychological preferences of the speech  community. Talk on weather,
for example, in British community is used for conducting phatic  communication. For
example: 

Sean: A fine night. The  young man: It is.  Sean: It must be up
to at least fifty degrees on the damn thermometer.  The young man:
All of that.  Sean: warm for this time of the year.  The young man:
I always said Dublin is the Riviera of Ireland. (S. Shepard, The
First Night:43)

As we see, in this case the intentions of the interlocutors do not interact to create a
meaningful unit. In fact, there is no cohesion of meaning. This is just a casual
conversation which is carried on in order to  maintain social cohesion. Conducting this
kind of phatic communication requires a different degree of salience. The speaker’s mind
carries out conscious recall –  recognition of certain formulae or constructions to realize
the choice of verbal tokens in each case. The degree of salience in case of the above
mentioned phatic discourse is reduced to a great extent, since the recognition of  scripts
of standard  conversational settings  as well as recall of stereotypical speech formulae
concerning weather, leisure, health does not by all means require retrieval of ready-made
and practiced conversational clichés. It includes a great deal of conscious outwork on
the speaker’s part. 

Undoubtedly, the social factor becomes focal in this type of phatic discourse. Phatic
communication becomes a strategic means for the successful realization of face-saving

41

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika



acts. Phatic discourse in which the social factor is predominant requires active conscious
outwork on the speaker’s part. Hence, it should be reasonable to suppose that it has a
fairly low degree of salience – if any at all. 

In summary, we can state that, the making of linguistic choices in the process of
phatic communication comprises various degrees of salience – from repetition of ready-
made speech formulae through spontaneous recognition of the corresponding script to
creation of new tokens through active recall. 

As we see, the salience of linguistic choices is related to mental processes in memory
– mind in society. Thus, socialization and enculturation of speech has established certain
behavioral norms and expectations – linguistic as well as non-linguistic – prevalent in
the community.

As a matter of fact, it should be mentioned that it is impossible to determine
degrees of salience for all types of linguistic choice-making. Our research carried out
on the example of standardized speech models was just an attempt  of conscious
insight into the infinite sphere of the subconscious, an attempt to see the unseen. As
a final indication,  I would like to express  my agreement with the idea that much of
what is involved in the process of  actual linguistic choice-making  takes place at a
subliminal level and is beyond  the sphere of conscious  linguistic or psychological
investigation. 

References:

1. Brown G., Yule G. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge, 1983.
2. Capone A. Pragmatics for Exam Students, 2003. In: http.www.adobe.com.
3. Cook G. Discourse, Oxford, 2002.
4. Clark H., Van Der Wege M. Imagination in Discourse. In: The Handbook of

Discourse Analysis ed. by Schiffrin D., Tannen D., Hamilton H., Cambridge, 2003.
5. Cutting J. Pragmatics and Discourse. London, 2002.
6. Halliday M.A.K. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London, 1975.
7. Jakobson R. Linguistics and Poetics. In: Style in Language ed. by Sebeok Th.,

Cambridge, 1975.
8. Malinovski B. The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages. In: The

Meaning of Meaning ed. by Ogden C.K., Richards I.A., London, 1936. 
9. Verschueren J. Understanding Pragmatics, New-York, 1999.

10.Ïàðîíÿí Ø. Åäèíèöû ðå÷åâîãî îáùåíèÿ â ñâåòå òåîðèè
âçàèìîäåéñòâèÿ, Åðåâàí, 2003. 

11.Ïî÷åïöîâ Ã. Ôàòè÷åñêàÿ ìåòàêîììóíèêàöèÿ  êí.: Ñåìàíòèêà è
ïðàãìàòèêà ñèíòàêñè÷åñêèõ åäèíñòâ ïîä ðåä. Ñóñîâà È.,
Êàëèíèí, 1981.

42

Armenian Folia Anglistika                                                                                  Linguistics 



Sources of Data:

12. Hanley W. The Light Bulb. In Mrs Dally has a Lover and Other Plays, New York,
1963.

13. Shepard S. The First Night. In Seven Plays, London, 1985.

гÕáñ¹³Ïó³Ï³Ý ß÷áõ٠ѳëï³ïáÕ Ëáëù³ÛÇÝ ÙdzíáñÝ»ñÇ 
·Çï³Ïóí³Í ÏÇñ³éáõÃÛ³ÝÝ ³éÝãíáÕ Ñ³ñó»ñ

êáõÛÝ Ñá¹í³ÍáõÙ ùÝÝáõÃÛ³Ý ¿ ³éÝíáõÙ ·Çï³Ïóí³ÍáõÃÛ³Ý ¹»ñÁ Ëáëù³-
ÛÇÝ ·áñÍáõÝ»áõÃÛ³Ý ÁÝóóùáõÙ: î³ñμ»ñ Ëáëù³ÛÇÝ Çñ³¹ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñáõÙ É»½-
íÇ ÏÇñ³éÙ³Ý Ñ³Ù³ñ ³ÝÑñ³Å»ßï³μ³ñ ϳï³ñíáõÙ »Ý ï³ñμ»ñ ϳñ·Çª ³Ý-
·Çï³Ïó³Ï³ÝÇó ÙÇÝ㨠·Çï³Ïóí³Í Ùï³ÛÇÝ ·áñÍáÕáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ: ²Ûëå»ë, á-
ñáß ëï»ñ»áïÇå³ÛÇÝ Ëáëù³ÛÇÝ Çñ³¹ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñáõÙ ËáëáÕÝ»ñÁ ÇÝùݳμ»-
ñ³μ³ñ û·ï³·áñÍáõÙ »Ý å³ïñ³ëïÇ Ëáëù³ÛÇÝ Ï³Õ³å³ñÝ»ñ: ²é³Ýó ·Ç-
ï³Ïó³Ï³Ý ×Ç· ·áñͳ¹ñ»Éáõ Ýñ³Ýù å³ñ½³å»ë ÁÝïñáõÙ »Ý ïíÛ³É Çñ³¹-
ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ³Ù³å³ï³ëË³Ý É»½í³Ï³Ý Ýß³ÝÝ»ñÇ Ï³å³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝ: ê³Ï³ÛÝ
Ï³Ý Ý³¨ Ëáëù³ÛÇÝ Çñ³¹ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ, áñáÝù ËáëáÕÇó å³Ñ³ÝçáõÙ »Ý ëï»Õ-
ͳ·áñÍ³Ï³Ý Ùáï»óáõÙ ¨ Ùï³ÛÇÝ ç³Ýùª É»½í³Ï³Ý ³ÝÑñ³Å»ßï ÙÇçáóÝ»ñ
ÁÝïñ»Éáõ:

ü³ïÇÏ Ëáëù³ÛÇÝ ÙdzíáñÝ»ñÇ í»ñÉáõÍáõÃÛáõÝÁ ÃáõÛÉ ¿ ï³ÉÇë »Ýó¹ñ»É,
áñ í»ñçÇÝÝ»ñÇë ÏÇñ³éáõÃÛ³Ý ¹»åùáõÙ ³ÝÑñ³Å»ßï ¿ ÇÝãå»ë å³ïñ³ëïÇ
Ëáëù³ÛÇÝ μ³Ý³Ó¨»ñÇ û·ï³·áñÍáõÙ, ³ÛÝå»ë ¿É É»½í³Ï³Ý ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ ÁÝï-
ñáõÃÛ³Ý »Ýó·Çï³Ïó³Ï³Ý Ùï³ÛÇÝ ·áñÍáõÝ»áõÃÛáõÝ: 

43

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika