73PROFILE Vol. 13, No. 2, October 2011. ISSN 1657-0790. Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 73-84

“Don’t Tell My Father”: Important Lessons Learned
Through EFL Classroom Small Talk

“No le digan a mi padre”: lecciones importantes aprendidas a través
de la comunión fática en el salón de inglés como lengua extranjera

Gabriela Ayala González*
Miguel Adrián Leonel de Cervantes Orozco**

Víctor Daniel González Cabrera***
Faviola Romero Mayoral****

Gerrard Edwin Mugford Fowler*****
Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico

All too often phatic communion is neglected in the English as a foreign language classroom or relegated
to the level of formulaic language which merits little or no attention. In this article we argue that phatic
communion plays an important role in establishing, developing and maintaining interpersonal rela -
tionships between teacher and learners which can be seen in terms of solidarity and supportive-
ness. Furthermore, small talk offers one of the few opportunities for students to engage in meaningful
communicative interaction in the English as a foreign language classroom which is largely characterised
by non-authentic language activities. Using classroom data, we attempt to show that teachers and students
actively look for ways to enhance personal relationships as they boost the face of other interactants.

Key words: English as a foreign language, interpersonal language, phatic communion.

A menudo se descuida la “comunión fática” en los salones donde se imparte el inglés como lengua
extranjera o se baja al nivel de una fórmula lingüística que merece poca o ninguna atención. En este
artículo sostenemos que la “comunión fática” juega un papel importante al establecer, desarrollar y
mantener las relaciones interpersonales entre maestro y alumno, lo cual puede ser visto en términos
de solidaridad y apoyo. Además, la comunión fática ofrece una de las pocas oportunidades para
que los estudiantes participen de manera significativa en actividades de comunicación en el aula de
inglés como lengua extranjera, la cual se caracteriza por sus actividades no auténticas del lenguaje.
Utilizamos la información del aula para mostrar que los maestros y alumnos buscan maneras de
mantener una relación personal mientras impulsan su “imagen” entre otros interactuantes.

Palabras clave: comunión fática, inglés como lengua extranjera, lenguaje interpersonal.

* E-mail: gabiotilla@hotmail.com
** E-mail:malco_zero87@hotmail.com
*** E-mail: elhakimefk@hotmail.com
**** E-mail: faviola-01@hotmail.com
***** E-mail: gerrymugford@yahoo.com

This article was received on January 20, 2011, and accepted on May 4, 2011.

74 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras

Ayala González, Cervantez Orozco, González Cabrera, Romero Mayoral & Mugford Fowler

Introduction
Small talk or ‘phatic communion’ (Malinowski,

1923/1969) in the foreign-language (FL) classroom
is all too often an unexploited propitious oppor -
tunity to interact in the target language in mean-
ingful ways. In contrast to the endless class hours
spent presenting and practising non-authentic
language in the English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) classroom, student-generated small talk
reflects motivated and authentic real-life language
use and allows teachers to exploit learners’
interactive communication skills. Although fre-
quently pres ented as formulaic and pre-patterned
language, small talk is a common theme in ELT
coursebooks. However, in the actual classroom,
teachers miss the opportunity to take advantage
of emerging small talk given the administrative
pressures to follow the course programme and
perhaps ‘finish’ the book. Through collecting data
in five contrasting teaching contexts in Mexico, this
paper investigates how language learners engage in
classroom small talk and how teachers respond to
such interactional opportunities. Research begs
the bigger question as to whether the FL classroom
should reflect target-language small talk or local
practices i.e. if language users should adhere to
target-language norms of phatic communion or
develop their own ways of engaging in small talk.
After analysing the classroom data, we argue that
EFL learner interaction should reflect genuine
communication where FL interactants engage in
meaningful lan guage use rather than mirror and
second-guess target-language usage.

In this article we begin by reviewing the
concept of phatic communion and then highlight
its relevance to the EFL classroom. After examining
the nature and history of the concept, we maintain
that it is closely linked to solidarity and support
since phatic communion is used to develop,
reinforce and maintain interpersonal relationships.

Subsequently, we specifically consider how phatic
communion is related to face enhancement and
gossip. After conducting and analysing classroom
observations, we discuss how phatic communion
can be encouraged in the classroom and what the
factors working against it are. As a conclusion we
argue that phatic communion is an important
resource in encouraging meaningful interpersonal
language use in the classroom.

Nature of Phatic Communion
The origins of research on phatic communion

can be traced to Malinowski who coined the term
in the 1930s. A second era of research focused on
discursive and situational approaches which led
to our examining contemporary analyses in terms
of rapport management and the interpersonal
language use which has been the academic focus
in this decade. First of all, however, we offer an
example of phatic communion in the foreign-
language learning context as a teacher interacts
with students before the beginning of class.
1. Teacher: How was your day?

2. Brenda: Bad.

3. Teacher: Wow! You´re very honest. Why?

4. Diana: I have very busy day.

5. Alberto: Yeah, I always.

6. Benda: It’s boring.

7. Teacher: Why boring?

8. Estefan: A lot of work.

(Extract 1)

In Extract 1, the teacher demonstrates concern
for his students’ feelings and attempts to establish
(or re-establish) a level of rapport. He is engaging
in phatic communion. He is attempting to show
supportiveness by trying to understand how his
students feel. Phatic communion offers choices
since, alternatively, he could have attempted
to establish solidarity, or to use Aston’s term,

‘Don’t Tell My Father’: Important Lessons Learned...

PROFILE Vol. 13, No. 2, October 2011. ISSN 1657-0790. Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 73-84

‘solidary routines’ (1988, p. 255) by sharing the
same feelings.

The term phatic communion was first pro-
posed by Malinowski to describe ‘a mode of action’
(1923, p. 296) during which interactants develop
interpersonal relationships as “ties of union are
created by a mere exchange of words” (1923, p.
315). Malinowski, however, gave little importance
to the actual words echoed in phatic communion,
claiming that words merely fulfil a solidary rather
than a referential or reflective function.

Whilst Malinowski pioneered the interactional
dimension to language use, further work on phatic
communion was limited until Laver revisited the
concept and highlighted the social dimension of
phatic communion especially in terms of how
interactants may engage in exploratory talk at
the beginning, in the middle and at the end of
conversations. Far more than reflecting “a mere
exchange of words”, Laver argues that phatic
communion is also used to avoid silence and to
prepare the way to engage in “an initiatory function,
in that it allows the participants to cooperate in
getting the interaction comfortably under way [...]”
(1975, p. 221). In other words, phatic communion
prepares the way for language users to make the
transition to transactional language use e.g. asking
for or giving information. Stressing the social
motivation behind phatic language use, Laver
(1975) like Malinowski, underscored the formulaic
dimension to small talk whilst downplaying the
individual aspect of phatic communion.

Taking a much more local approach to phatic
communion, Coupland, Coupland and Robinson
(1992) emphasise the negotiatory dimension of
small talk. Critiquing Malinowski’s and Laver’s
formulaic and patterned approaches to phatic
communion, Coupland, Coupland and Robinson
argue that small talk should be examined in terms
of ‘relational engagement’ (1992, p. 217) as language

users approach each interaction on an individual
basis depending on what they want to achieve
socially and relationally from the interaction as
‘this very indeterminacy may be the hallmark of
phatic communion and the key to its social utility’
(1992, p. 226).

Further highlighting the importance of small
talk, Coupland (2000b) has argued for the discoursal
importance of small talk. In his introduction to a
collected volume of papers on phatic communion,
Small Talk (Coupland, 2000a), Coupland argues
for the contextual analysis of phatic communion
and the need to examine “the relationship between
form and function within those contexts, as is
classically the case with discourse analysis” (2000b,
p. 22). Coupland also edited a special edition of the
journal Research on Language and Social Interaction
dedicated to examining phatic communion from
a more conversation analysis perspective. The
collection of the articles “explores how small talk
is achieved interactionally, turn by turn, and what
this displays about small talk and its achievements
for participants in situ” (Coupland, 2003, p. 5).

The study of phatic communion has therefore
developed from seeing small talk as a nebulous
exchange of words to situated language use.
Current work focuses on small talk in terms of
rapport management (Hernández López, 2008;
Spencer-Oatey, 2008) and the personal dimension
to phatic communion (Placencia, 2004). In this
paper, we adopt the definition of phatic talk as local
interactional language use aimed at establishing,
developing and maintaining a given interpersonal
relationship. In particular, we examine the solidary
dimension of small talk. Rather than seeing
phatic communion in generalised social terms
(Malinowski, 1923; Laver, 1975) or discoursal and
situational approaches (Coupland, Coupland and
Robinson, 1992; Coupland, 2000a, 2000b), we
examine small talk in interpersonal terms as

76 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras

Ayala González, Cervantez Orozco, González Cabrera, Romero Mayoral & Mugford Fowler

interactants construct or even fail to construct
phatic talk within a specific localised context.
Dynamic and not always purely formulaic, phatic
communion reflects deliberate and often tentative
attempts to establish, develop and maintain rela-
tionships. Exploratory and hesitant talk may be
even more underscored in the foreign-language
classroom when teachers and students attempt to
establish, develop and maintain their interpersonal
relationship in the target language.

Phatic Communion and Solidarity
Whilst agreeing with Malinowski’s assertion

that phatic communion reflects solidary talk, we
argue that the actual words do matter because
the phatic actions do not produce automatic
and predictable results. Furthermore, solidarity
needs to be understood in terms of how it is
expressed. In phatic communion, interaction
can convey solidarity by matching the feelings of
another interactant, or what Aston (1989) terms
supportiveness, e.g.
1. Teacher: Did you bring your umbrella today?

2. Pedro: No.

3. Alicia: Yes, do you like it? It has flowers.

4. Teacher: Yeah, it is really beautiful. Personally, I don’t like the

rainy days.

Do you like the rainy days.

5. Pablo: Only when I am in my house. (Laughs)

6. Students: (Laugh)

7. Teacher: What about you guys?

8. Sergio: Yes.

9. Ivan: Yes, only when I am in my bed sleeping.

10. Teacher: (Laughs) Yeah or when you are not around Plaza del Sol

where there is a big river.

(Extract 2)

The common thread of laughter (lines 5, 6 and
10) and joking (e.g. line 9) reflects solidary talk
as the interactants share common perceptions

and feelings regarding rainy weather since they
have all gone through the same experience.
Furthermore, we would argue that the words do
matter as interactants engage in speech acts (e.g.
the compliment in line 4: Yeah, it is really beautiful)
and creative language use (e.g. line 9: ...when I am
in my bed sleeping).

At the same time, interaction can involve ‘doing’
phatic communion rather than just expressing
commonly-felt experiences. For instance, in the
following extract:
1. Teacher: Really, what do you want to study?

2. Carlos: I’m going to study “controlador aereo” [air traffic

controller]

3. Teacher: Air traffic controller? It’s great. Actually, my father

wanted me to study that, because he works in the airport. This

job is a great. Responsibility right?

4. Carlos: Yeah!

(Extract 3)

Carlos has just told the teacher that he is learning
English in order to pursue a second career. After
saying that he wants to be an air traffic controller,
the teacher reveals ‒through ‘self-disclosure’‒
that his father also wanted him to pursue the
same career. Self-disclosure between interactants
establishes common ground as interactants engage
in phatic communion. Given Carlos’s enthusiastic
answer, the interactants are in a stronger position
to create what Malinowski calls ‘ties of union’.

Self-disclosure plays an important part in how
interactants want to present themselves to other
interactants as Wardhaugh argues:

You must “present yourself ” in a conversation, and part of that

pres entation is the way you choose to display yourself to others

and how you view your relationship with the rest of the world. In

fact, every encounter with another person requires you to come

to a decision about how you want to appear in that encounter,

that is, how you wish to present yourself to the other or others.

(1985, pp. 26-27)

‘Don’t Tell My Father’: Important Lessons Learned...

PROFILE Vol. 13, No. 2, October 2011. ISSN 1657-0790. Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 73-84

When engaging in phatic talk, FL users need to
decide how they want to come across. Therefore,
words employed in phatic communion are
important.

Face-boosting
Solidary talk can go much further than

expressing or doing phatic communion. Interac-
tants can also engage in face enhancing acts where
they attempt to boost the ‘face’ of other interactants.
The term ‘face’ is taken from Goffman (1967) who
argues that participants present a ‘face’ when they
are interacting in a conversation. Goffman argues
that participants will “claim a positive social value”
for themselves “in any particular contact” (1967,
p. 5). Face is not fixed and stable as House argues:
“Face can be likened to a person’s public self-esteem
or self-image, which can be damaged, maintained
or enhanced in interaction with other others” (1998,
p. 57). Face is “only on loan” (Goffman, 1967, p. 10)
during a given interaction and other interactants
can take, augment and decrease another partici-
pant’s face. A decrease can lead to a loss of face or
a face-threatening act (Brown and Levinson, 1987)
whilst an increase can lead to intimacy enhancement
(Aston, 1989), face-boosting acts (Bayraktaroğlu,
1991, 2001), face enhancement (Sifianou, 1995)
and rapport enhancement (Spencer-Oatey, 2008).
Face enhancement becomes an important factor
in non-formulaic phatic communion i.e. small
talk that aims to develop meaningful interpersonal
relationships. An example of the face boosting can
be seen in the following example:
1. Teacher: Hey, Dave, your team won, right? 6-0

2. David: Yes, teacher.

3. Teacher: How much time did you play?

4. David: The complete game.

5. Teacher: Oh, really? That’s great.

(Extract 4)

The teacher’s opening question is designed to
make David feel good as he respects his English-
language name and has done his ‘homework’ by
finding out that David’s team won the game. He
then congratulates David on playing for the whole
game. Face boosting acts run the risk of sounding
formulaic but in this case the teacher appears to
take a real interest in the student.

Phatic Communion and Gossip
Whilst often maligned as mean-spirited and

malicious talk, gossip has attracted the attention
of discourse analysts and sociolinguists because it
reflects the nature and strength of interpersonal
relationships. For instance, Eggins and Slade (1997,
p. 283) have identified two key social functions
of gossip: 1) to establish and reinforce group
membership; 2) as a form of social control. Since
it involves talking negatively about a third party
not present in the conversation, gossip ‘provides a
means of exploring similarity and shared values’ as
it ‘draws boundaries between a “we” and a “they”;
it forges ties that bind a group together’ (Eggins &
Slade, 1997, p. 283). At the same time, gossip exerts
social control since “it is a way of asserting collective
values and increasing group cohesion, and it also
enables the group to control the behaviour of its
members” (Eggins & Slade, 1997, p. 283).

In the following example of phatic communion,
students are gossiping with the teacher about their
school:
1. Teacher: Hey, how are you?

2. Maria: Not so good.

3. Teacher: Why? What’s the matter?

4. Maria: Can you believe they want us to go to school on Sunday?

5. Teacher: Really? Why? What did you do?

6. Maria: Just because the school is going to be evaluated!

7. Teacher: That’s too bad, but hey! Such is life.

(Extract 5)

78 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras

Ayala González, Cervantez Orozco, González Cabrera, Romero Mayoral & Mugford Fowler

Maria is talking negatively about a third party
i.e. her school authorities which she claims are
making students go to school on Sunday (line 4) in
order to be certified (line 6). The teacher appears to
side with the student by expressing his sympathy
(line 7).

Research Structure
This research project took place over a period

of six months as four Mexican teachers recorded
conversations that reflected interactional language
use during their EFL classes in five private language
institutions. Generally lasting 40 hours, the courses
ranged from basic to advanced levels with an
average of eight students in each class, which lasted,
on average, 120 minutes.

The four teachers –two males and two females–
are between 22 and 26 years old and are completing
their final year on a BA programme in TEFL. They
are advanced level English-language speakers who
will soon be presenting their TOEFL examination
where they are expected to achieve 600+ points. So
as not to deliberately or even inadvertently engage
in phatic communion for the purposes of this
study, the teachers were not informed about the
overarching research question guiding this study
which is: How do teachers and students engage in
phatic communion in the EFL classroom?

However, when they had collected the neces-
sary data they were fully integrated into the project
and asked for their comments and insights.

Research Methodology
The teachers were initially asked to write

down instances of classroom small talk, which
took place at the beginning and the end of class.
They recorded the conversations through a recon-
structed dialogue technique i.e. the teachers wrote
down the instances of phatic communion at an
opportune moment as soon as possible after the

interaction. Reconstructed dialogue was chosen
since overt recording would have been too
intrusive and could have stifled the spontaneity of
classroom small talk.

All the participants involved in the project were
asked to sign consent forms authorising the use
of the classroom data. To protect the participants’
identity, pseudonyms have been used throughout
this paper.

Findings
Phatic communion is used by both teachers

and students to develop and reinforce solidarity in
the EFL context. Often it will involve self-disclosure
as seen in the following extract:
1. Teacher: Good morning, Blanca. How are you?

2. Blanca: Sleepy, I went to bed at 1:00.

3. Teacher: What were you doing so late?

4. Blanca: Don’t tell my father, but I was watching a movie.

5. Teacher: OK.

(Extract 6)

Whilst the small talk commences in a formulaic
way with a greeting i.e. Good morning, Blanca. How
are you? (line 1), there is a non-standard response:
Sleepy, I went to bed at 1:00. (line 2). Blanca’s
follow-up comment in line 4, Don’t tell my father,
but I was watching a movie, reveals a degree of
trust and closeness as she explains why she stayed
up late. Therefore the phatic communion aims to
shorten distance through self-disclosure and gossip
as Blanca asks the teacher to hide the information
from her father, who obviously does not approve of
his daughter staying up late. With the OK (line 5),
the teacher appears to collude with Blanca.

Phatic communion may also involve shared
feelings as interactants experience the same feelings
as seen in the following extract when the students
and the teacher talk about studying on Saturday
mornings:

‘Don’t Tell My Father’: Important Lessons Learned...

PROFILE Vol. 13, No. 2, October 2011. ISSN 1657-0790. Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 73-84

1. Teacher: Hi! Good morning!

2. Students: Hi, teacher!

3. Teacher: How are you?

4. Marco: Fine, teacher!

5. Moisés: Yo tengo mucho sueño, teacher! [I am really tired]

6. Teacher: Yes, I know… I know it is difficult sometimes to wake

up on

7. Saturdays but today we will have a great class! But first, why

8. don’t you tell me what did you do during the week?

9. Esteban: Me! I had 3 exams, and 2 projects!

10. Teacher: And did you get good grades?

(Extract 7)

Once again, small talk starts off with formulaic
greetings (lines 1, 2, 3 and 4). However, Moisés
reveals his ‘true’ feelings by saying in Spanish that
he is sleepy: Yo tengo mucho sueño, teacher! (line
5), By answering in Spanish, Moisés seems to be
appealing to teacher’s first language and thereby
attempting to create a degree of solidarity. The
teacher picks up on this commonly-felt feeling
and answers in English with Yes, I know… I know
it is difficult sometimes to wake up on Saturdays
(lines 6 and 7) and tries to respond to the students
by offering to give a great class (line 7). Phatic
communion is not being used in formulaic ways
but rather to talk about student motivation and
how to get the class going.

Students will often use phatic communion to
develop the relationship with the teacher inside and
outside of the classroom. In the following extract,
a student attempts to find out about the teacher’s
private life:

While the teacher is waiting for students to finish an exercise,

Clarissa, a student, grabbed the teacher’s cell phone.

1. Clarissa: She’s your girl, teacher?

2. Teacher: Yes, but you shouldn’t look at my stuff. (Clarissa stares

at the picture)

3. Clarissa: Sorry… ¿Y cuánto llevan? [For how long?]

4. Teacher: Ha ha ha ha, two months and counting.

5. Clarissa: Neta? It’s serious? [Really?]

6. Teacher: Yes, the only serious relationship I’ve had.

7. Clarissa: oh! ‘ta chido. [that’s cool]

8. Teacher: Thanks, I know. Now FOCUS!

(Extract 8)

Clarissa asks personal questions about the
teacher’s girl-friend (line 1) by using an affirmative
grammatical structure and appears to be seeking
out gossip about the girl-friend. The teacher
mildly admonishes Clarissa as he engages in self-
disclosure by revealing how long they have been
going out two months and counting (line 4) and
revealing that this is the only serious relationship
I’ve had (line 6). Clarissa engages in face-boosting
by saying in Spanish ‘ta chido (that’s cool) (line 7).
The teacher accepts the compliment in line 8 and
asks Clarissa to concentrate on her work.

Student interest in their teachers was a common
feature of small talk as revealed in the following
interaction that took place as the teacher was trying
to take attendance.
1. Teacher: Fine, guys!

2. Elena: Teacher? How old are you?

3. Teacher: I’m 24 years, why?

4. Elena: Because you have a ring in your finger! Are you going to

get marry?

5. Teacher: Jajaja. Yes!

6. Sandra: When, teacher?

7. Teacher: On March!

8. Adriana: Teacher? Y nos vas a invitar? [And are you going to

invite us?]

9. Teacher: Jajaja, I am not sure… Maybe. Jajaja… This is a strange

situation for me. I think it is better if we start the class…

(Extract 9)

Once again small talk is far from formulaic and
mainly takes place in English as students express
an interest in knowing more about their teacher
e.g. How old are you? (line 2) and Are you going to

80 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras

Ayala González, Cervantez Orozco, González Cabrera, Romero Mayoral & Mugford Fowler

get marry? (lines 4 and 5). After engaging in self-
disclosure by revealing her age (line 3) and when
she is going to get married (line 8), the teacher feels
embarrassed by the level of intimacy and assumes
her role as a teacher and tells the students that they
should begin the lesson (line 9).

Student interest in their teachers did not solely
focus on their personal relationships outside the
classroom. In the following extract, students are
interested in where the teacher works.

The student came across the teacher after his
class and starts a conversation.
1. Roberto: Teacher! How are you?

2. Teacher: I’m fine, thank you. How about you?

3. Roberto: I’m great. [Here there was a moment of silence as

Roberto signed some school papers]

4. Roberto: Teacher, do you work? (Teacher stares at Roberto)

5. Roberto: I mean, besides here.

6. Teacher: Yeah, I work on Saturdays in another school.

7. Roberto: Oh! That’s why you never come on Saturdays?

8. Teacher: Exactly, that’s why.

(Extract 10)

The small talk reflects a genuine interest by
Roberto in the teacher. Whilst the small talk starts
off with the formulaic How are you? I’m fine,
thank you. How about you? I’m great (lines 1–3),
it quickly becomes potentially face-threatening i.e.
“acts that intrinsically threaten face” (Brown and
Levinson 1987, p. 60), when Roberto asks Teacher,
do you work? (line 4). In a remedial interchange
(Goffman 1971), Roberto self-corrects with I mean,
besides here (line 5). The phatic communion is now
back on track with Yeah, I work on Saturdays in
another school (line 7).

Phatic Communion and
Face Enhancement
Face enhancement reflects a personal dimen-

sion to phatic communion and is a common fea-

ture of student-student and teacher-student talk.
Its use further reinforces the argument that small
talk does not have to be predictable and formulaic.

In the following extract, the students express
their appreciation of their classmates and therefore
develop another dimension to solidarity.
1. Teacher: Good morning, Alejandra. How are you?

2. Alejandra: Good morning, teacher, I am very happy because

Berta is coming

3. Today.

4. Teacher: I am glad!

5. Alejandra: Glad?

6. Teacher: I am happy too.

7. Carla: May I come in please?

8. Teacher: Good morning, Carla; come in.

9. Naylea and Paula: Can we come in?

10. Teacher: Good morning, girls! Come in.

11. Alejandra: Berta, I am happy to see you!

12. Berta: Me too, te traje unas pulseras. [I brought you some bracelets]

(Extract 11).

The conversation begins with formulaic greet-
ings followed by self-disclosure as Alejandra
reveals that she is happy since she expects her
friend, Berta, to come to class today. The teacher
makes a supportive move by saying that she is
glad – although it is not clear whether she is
happy because Alejandra is happy or because
Berta is coming to class. When Berta does finally
arrive, Alejandra greets her with a Face Boosting
Act (FBA): Berta, I am happy to see you! (line 11).
Berta responds to the FBA with Me too (line 12) and
subsequently code-switches to Spanish. The code-
switch may have further signalled closeness and
solidarity. It should also be noted that the teacher
uses the phatic communion to introduce the word
glad as a synonym for happy (lines 4-6) without
specifically teaching the word.

In the following extract, the teacher engages in
face boosting as he jokingly talks to the students

‘Don’t Tell My Father’: Important Lessons Learned...

PROFILE Vol. 13, No. 2, October 2011. ISSN 1657-0790. Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 73-84

about an upcoming examination. The small talk
reflects intersentential code-switching as the
teacher speaks in English and the students talk in
Spanish:
1. Rodrigo: ¿Está difícil el examen, teacher? [Is the exam difficult?]

2. Teacher: No, I don’t think so. You are very intelligent. I think it

is easy for you!

3. Ricardo: Really?

4. Teacher: Yes!

5. Alberto: ¿Nos vas a pasar las respuestas, teacher? [Are you going

to give us the answers?]

6. Teacher: No! Jajaja, I am going to take attendance, jajaja.

7. Ricardo: ¿Nos deja ver el examen mientras toma la asistencia? [Can

you let us look at the exam whilst you are doing the attendance?]

8. Teacher: Of course not!!! Jajajaja. Relax, guys, everything is going

to be ok!

(Extract 12)

The conversation starts off with Rodrigo asking
whether the examination is going to be difficult.
The teacher appears to give an honest answer
No, I don’t think so (line 2) and then engages in
face boosting: You are very intelligent. I think it
is easy for you! (line 2). Then the students switch
to Spanish to engage in language play as they ask
the teacher whether he is going to give them the
answers or at least look at the examination (lines
7 and 8). The teacher appears to make no effort
to force the students to speak in English which
raises the question as to whether small-talk has to
be completely in the target-language or can reflect
interaction in two languages.

Discussion
Phatic communion inside and outside the EFL

classroom reflects both formulaic and inventive
language use as both teachers and students employ
a range of discursive resources to establish, develop,
maintain interpersonal relationships which can be
seen in terms of solidarity and supportiveness.

A key resource is self-disclosure (extracts 6-10),
which enables teachers and students to step out of
their fixed classroom roles and come across in more
individualistic ways. Such a strategy is important
for foreign-language learners so that they can
develop personal rather than anonymous relation-
ships in the target-language i.e. they can participate
as a somebody rather than as an anybody (Aston,
1989; Sacks, 1970 - 1971; Schenkein, 1978).

Self-disclosure can develop into supportiveness
i.e. understanding how the other feels e.g. com-
plimenting the teacher on his girlfriend (extract 8)
or into solidarity i.e. having undergone the same
experience as other interactants e.g. feeling sleepy
(extract 7).

However, small talk can go wrong as seen in
extract 9 when the teacher feels uncomfortable
being asked about her wedding plans or in extract
10 when the teacher is asked whether he works. The
incidences offer opportunities for students to deal
with unsuccessful small talk. In extract 9, the teacher
ended the small talk but in extract 10 the student
demonstrated the ability to rephrase his request.

Face enhancement was a commonly employed
strategy, which reflects local language use since it is a
common feature of Mexican Spanish. Extracts 11 and
12 indicate that face-enhancement is used by both
teachers and learners. Since face-enhancement is not
particularly characteristic of target-language usage in
the United States and the United Kingdom, teachers
are faced with the pedagogical choice regarding
whether students should be using EFL small talk to
engage in meaningful relationships or whether they
should mimic target-language practices.

Encouraging Phatic Communion
Given that classroom data in this study have

recorded the widespread use of phatic communion,
we argue that teachers should provide the
necessary opportunities to develop and work on

82 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras

Ayala González, Cervantez Orozco, González Cabrera, Romero Mayoral & Mugford Fowler

phatic talk and practices. The kind of predictable,
formulaic patterns of small talk are dealt with
in most EFL textbooks. However, the personal
and unpredictable nature of small talk cannot be
tackled solely through textbook exercises and
needs to be developed, rehearsed and practised in a
classroom context.

Whilst learners cannot be taught phatic
communion, they can be given opportunities to
examine its features and how resources are used
in terms of ‘skills-getting’ as opposed to ‘skills-use’
(Rivers & Temperley, 1978, p. 4). Skills-getting
activities provide learners with the opportunity
to practise different features of communication
in a classroom setting. With respect to phatic
communion, learners can be given the chance to
examine supportiveness, solidarity, self-disclosure
and gossip. Skills-use means using phatic know-
ledge in a communicative context.

Skills-getting can be developed either through
deconstruction or construction activities (Aston,
1989). Deconstruction activities invite students
to notice and analyse how target-language users
employ resources to achieve communicative aims
whilst construction activities encourage FL users
to use resources to achieve interactional objectives.
Noticing is a key aspect of developing interactional
ability in the target-language. Batstone (1994, 1996)
argues that noticing gives learners the opportunity
to consciously attend to language ‘input’ and
structure it so that it becomes part of the student’s
language ‘intake’ and is ready for future use.

Deconstruction activities can be used to
examine how target-language users achieve sup-
portiveness and solidarity and engage in gossip.
Easily accessible TL language instances of phatic
talk can be found by inviting learners to watch such
sitcom shows as Two and a Half Men, The Big Bang
Theory and The New Adventures of Old Christine
to examine how the leading characters show

concern and interest with each other as they share
experiences or talk behind each other’s backs.

Construction activities can help learners to
develop, for instance, self-disclosure and face-
boosting. For example, icebreakers and warm-ups
can be used to encourage learners to reveal aspects
about themselves that enable them to come
across as individuals. For instance, students may
be asked to write up three revealing statements
about themselves, one of which is not true, and
in a probing and personal question-and-answer
session his/her classmates have to establish which
statement is wrong. With regards to face-boosting,
learners can be asked to write down three qualities
they like about a classmate and then design a role-
play into which they incorporate the FBAs.

Discouraging Phatic Communion
Whilst we have argued that phatic communion

is a common feature of classroom interaction, it is
often discouraged by administrators, coordinators
and teacher trainers. Phatic communion is often
considered ‘wasteful’ because 1) it detracts from
the transactional nature of the classroom e.g.
learning grammar, communicative functions; 2) it
undermines the importance of timing which is
considered to be an essential feature of a successful
and balanced class; 3) it potentially undercuts
teachers´ efforts to complete the programme on
schedule; and 4) phatic communion is best obser-
ved and learnt in the target-language environment.

Whilst such arguments reflect the reality of
classroom teaching and learning, we argue that
phatic communion should be given its place (and
perhaps time slot) in the syllabus as it reflects
authentic language use and may improve students’
ability to participate in unplanned spontaneous
discourse which must be a key factor in devel-
oping communicative competence. With regard to
learning and practising phatic communion in the

‘Don’t Tell My Father’: Important Lessons Learned...

PROFILE Vol. 13, No. 2, October 2011. ISSN 1657-0790. Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 73-84

TL context, Mexican learners often use English for
work e.g., in the computer and tourism sectors, and
need to interact with other non-native speakers
and therefore may never have the opportunity to
practise phatic communion in the TL environment.

Conclusions
In this paper, we have argued that teachers need

to be aware of the learning opportunities afforded
to their students by phatic communion. To pursue
this argument, we reviewed the concept of phatic
communion arguing that it is more than just a
“mere exchange of words” as Malinowski (1923, p.
315) would suggest. We then examined how phatic
communion as spontaneous and unplanned talk
is a feature of the foreign-language classroom as
learners use phatic language to express support
or solidarity, to engage in face enhancement,
and to participate in gossip. Such findings reveal
meaningful interpersonal language use. For many
students, classroom phatic communion may be
one of the few opportunities they have to engage in
authentic language. Therefore, we would argue that
teachers need to know how to exploit opportunities
for engaging in phatic communion and help
learners develop their linguistic competence with
regards to small talk.

References
Aston, G. (1988). Learning comity: An approach to the

description and pedagogy of interaction speech, Bologna:
Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna.

Aston, G. (1989). Learning comity: An approach to the
description and pedagogy of interaction speech. PhD Dis-
sertation, Institute of Education, University of London.

Batstone, R. (1994). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Batstone, R. (1996). Noticing. ELT Journal, 50(3), 273.
Bayraktaroğlu, A. (1991). Politeness and interactional

imbalance. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 92, 5-34.

Bayraktaroğlu, A. (2001). Advice-giving in Turkish: “Supe-
riority” or “solidarity”? In A. Bayraktaroğlu & M.
Sifianou, (Eds.). Linguistic politeness across bound
aries: The case of Greek and Turkish (pp. 177-208).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in
language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coupland, J. (Ed.) (2000a). Small talk. Harlow. Essex:
Pearson.

Coupland, J. (2000b). Introduction: sociolinguistic per-
spectives on small talk. In J. Coupland (Ed.). Small talk
(pp. 1-25). Harlow, Essex: Pearson.

Coupland, J. (2003). Small talk: Social functions. Research
on Language and Social Interaction, 36(1), 1-6.

Coupland, J., Coupland N. & Robinson J. D. (1992). “How
are you?” Negotiating phatic communion. Language in
Society, 21, 207-230.

Eggins, S., & Slade D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation.
London: Cassell.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on facetoface
behaviour. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the
public order. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Hernández López, M. (2008). Rapport management under
examination in the context of medical consultations
in Spain and Britain. Revista Alicantina de Estudios
Ingleses, 21, 69-98.

House, J. (1998). Politeness and translation. In L. Hickey (Ed.).
The pragmatics of translation (pp. 54-71). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.

Laver, J. (1975). Communicative functions of phatic com-
munion. In A. Kendon, R.M. Harris & M. R. Key
(Eds.), Organization of Behaviour in FacetoFace Inter
action (pp. 215-238). The Hague: Mouton.

Malinowski, B. (1923 / 1969). The problem of meaning in
primitive languages. In C.K. Ogden & I. A. Richards
(Eds.) (1949). The meaning of meaning: A study of the
influence upon thought and of the science of symbolism
(pp. 296-336). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

Placencia, M. E. (2004). Rapport-building in corner shop
interactions. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(2), 215-245.

84 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras

Ayala González, Cervantez Orozco, González Cabrera, Romero Mayoral & Mugford Fowler

Rivers, W., & Temperley M. (1978). A practical guide to the
teaching of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sacks, H. (1970 - 1971). On Being Ordinary. In J. M.
Atkinson & J. Heritage (1984), Structures of Social
Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 413-429)
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schenkein, J. (1978). Identity negotiations in conversation.
In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organisation of
conversational interaction (pp. 57-78). New York, NY:
Academic Press.

Sifianou, M. (1995). Do we need to be silent to be extremely
polite? Silence and FTAs. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 95-110.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.) (2008). Culturally Speaking: Man
aging rapport through talk across culture. London:
Continuum.

Wardhaugh, R. (1985). How Conversation Works. Oxford:
Blackwell.

About the Authors
Gabriela Ayala González is a Mexican student who is finishing a BA in Teaching English as a Foreign

Language at the University of Guadalajara. She is also an EFL teacher with experience of teaching teenagers
and children in private and public schools. Her current investigation interests include sociolinguistics and
classroom interaction.

Adrián Leonel de Cervantes Orozco is a Mexican EFL teacher with experience of teaching adults,
teenagers and children. He is currently completing his BA in Teaching English as a Foreign Language at the
Universidad de Guadalajara. His current interests include sociolinguistics, language program management
and teaching English as a second language.

Víctor González Cabrera is a Mexican EFL teacher with experience of teaching adults, teenagers and
children. He is currently completing his BA in Teaching English as a Foreign Language at the Universidad
de Guadalajara. His current research interests include sociolinguistics and teaching English as a second
language.

Faviola Romero Mayoral is a Mexican EFL teacher with experience of teaching children, teenagers and
adults. She is currently completing her BA in teaching English as a Foreign Language at the Universidad de
Guadalajara. Her research interests include research and teaching.

Gerrard Mugford Fowler works at la Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico, and holds a PhD from
the Institute of Education, University of London. His current research interests include critical pedagogy,
interpersonal language use and linguistic politeness and impoliteness.