Phatic Talk and Banter

Within the study of language and occupation, many linguists have carried out research into various aspects of language. An important linguist in the field of phatic talk and banter is Almut Koester, who is known for her research in spoken workplace discourse (written or spoken communication).

This article will look firstly at some key definitions to give us a base understanding of the study. Then we will look at Koester’s 2004 study, Relational sequences in workplace genres¹, including what motivated it, how it was carried out, and what was found (with a focus on her findings of phatic talk and banter). To finish off, we’ll then think about how we can apply this study to language and occupation. Throughout, we'll look at some phatic talk examples as well to make sure we can fully understand the topic.

Fig. 1 - Asking a colleague about their day is an example of phatic communication.

Key definitions in phatic talk and banter

In summary, phatic talk and phatic communication refer to the use of language and communication primarily for the purpose of establishing and maintaining social relationships rather than conveying information. Phatic talk is a language interaction known as small talk. Banter is lighthearted, playful, and often good-natured teasing between individuals.

Almut Koester's study investigates the two.

Phatic meaning

Phatic talk and phatic communication are typically used to initiate and maintain social interactions. Phatic talk typically involves casual and non-substantive topics, such as weather, current events, or personal interests. This type of communication involves superficial or formulaic responses that do not convey any meaningful information.

In a workplace environment, this relates to any social interaction that is not work-related and has the function of maintaining social relationships. Have a look at the phatic expressions below:

This whole interaction is made up of purely phatic communication where Tom and Julie are interacting for the sake of having a social interaction with no workplace-related motives or goals.

Types of phatic communication

There are 12 types of functions of phatic communication interactions. These are:

• starting a conversation - saying hello, initiating an interaction with someone in some way.
• breaking a silence - a method of avoiding or mitigating awkwardness.
• making small talk - being friendly, cultivating relationships without being too familiar.
• gossiping - talking about things going on around you or within your social circle.
• keeping a conversation going - maintaining or extending a topic of conversation.
• expressing solidarity - showing someone you agree with them or support them.
• creating harmony - acting upon your compatibility with someone, or diffusing tense interactions.
• creating comfort - making people feel comfortable or relaxed in your presence.
• expressing empathy - showing someone that you care about them or their situation.
• expressing friendship - fostering meaningful relationships with people, and maintaining them.
• expressing respect - showing someone you think highly of them and appreciate them.
• expressing politeness - using manners and being conscientious.

Each of these functions can be used to build upon or maintain social relationships, but don't necessarily have a purpose that goes beyond being social.

Phatic communication: examples

Here's a list of examples of all the types of phatic communication we covered in the above section:

Fig. 2 - Using phatic talk such as telling jokes, giving compliments, and being generally friendly are good ways to express friendship.

Transactional talk

Unlike the previous example of an interaction between Tom and Julie, this one is purely interactional, serving the purpose of arranging a meeting. In this instance, the goal is to organise a meeting that is met through the transaction of information for a solution to be concluded.

Within Koester's study, we're going to be looking at the use of both phatic and transactional talk.

Phatic talk and banter: Koester’s 2004 study

Now that we understand what some key concepts are, we can delve into Koester’s study and findings on relational sequences in workplace genres.

Motivation for the study

By 2004, there was already a large amount of research establishing the existence of workplace-specific communication and a link between language and occupation. Much of this research focussed on the differences between workplace language and ordinary social language. However, it's widely recognised by linguists that social interactions do play a part in workplace language.

Research has already shown that, although completing tasks is the main aim of workplace communication, phatic talk is also present. This phatic talk can be both long and short stretches of talking.

Koester’s study focuses on the shorter units of phatic talk occurring in workplace conversations to see if there were patterns in the type of phatic talk used. We will look at the study as a whole, however, we are then going to focus on the occurrence of phatic communication.

Methodology of the study

Koester collected data from three types of workplace offices in the UK and the USA. These types of offices were university offices, editorial offices in publishing companies, and editorial offices outside of publishing. These offices are all professional work environments where the language used is expected to be typical of workplace interactions.

Koester collated 30 hours of data which were transcribed into 66 conversations. Most of these conversations occurred between two participants and were task-oriented but in a somewhat informal fashion.

The sorts of tasks being carried out during these conversations were:

• Making arrangements
• Decision making
• Making requests
• Giving instructions
• Reporting information.

There were some exceptions to these task-oriented conversations, such as conversations comprising of small talk, office gossip and banter.

Koester then used conversation analysis to see what was occurring in each interaction.

Study findings

In the workplace interactions analysed, it was clear that where phatic talk appeared, the participants shared goals. These goals were found at four different levels of interaction, some in a recurring structural pattern in conversations. The four levels of interaction are non-transactional conversations, phatic communion, relational episodes, and relational sequences and turns. Let's look at each level in more detail.

These were the interactions that revolved around office gossip, small talk and banter.

For example: “Did you hear about what Steph did at the weekend? Martin said he saw her out with her ex-husband’s sister and they were…” and so on.

By phatic communion, Koester refers specifically to the small talk occurring at the beginning or end of a transactional interaction. This occurred as both general small talk and as banter and was used to create a sense that the participants value the social relationship they have and are not just using each other for the task at hand.

These are the occurrences of small talk, office gossip and banter during a transactional interaction. For example, while planning a meeting and briefly veering off-topic and then returning to the task being undertaken. The main difference between relational episodes and phatic communion is the positioning in a sentence. Phatic communion happens at the beginning or end of a sentence, whereas relational episodes occur throughout.

This interaction is transactional as it has a purpose but the office gossip in the middle would be classified by Koester as a relational episode.

Fig. 3 - Gossiping is one of the functions or types of phatic talk.

This relates to a conversation where the main focus is relational (creating relationships), with something like gossip, banter or phatic talk being the topic, but there is a task-related element. This may occur when people are chatting about social plans while working in the office, occasionally talking about the work they are doing but mainly focussing on the social aspect.

Understanding the study

Koester’s findings on the types of relational interaction are all important but we want to focus on the use of phatic communication (or phatic communion or small talk) and banter.

The main point to acknowledge from Koester’s research is that in workplace encounters, people simultaneously pursue both transactional and relational goals. This means that relational sequences, phatic talk and banter are key to effective transactional conversations and are woven into the base structures of workplace interactions. For example, starting and ending a transactional conversation with small talk, and sharing a joke or some item of gossip in the middle.

Where to apply phatic talk

This study acknowledges the existence and need for phatic talk in the workplace. This is something that is often not covered by other language and occupation theories, such as Drew and Heritage’s theory of institutional talk², which focus on the language of transactional conversations.

Koester’s findings are directly applicable to the field of language and occupation, especially where we have to carry out our own conversation analysis. These findings can allow us to say why phatic talk and banter are present in workplace conversations, and why it is important to have a social aspect to the working environment.