Rapport management in air traffic control in Malaysian aviation ...

John Benjamins Publishing Company

This is a contribution from Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 21:1 © 2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company This electronic file may not be altered in any way. The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet. For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com

Rapport management in air traffic control in Malaysian aviation discourse Shamala Paramasivam

Oral communication is documented as the weakest link in air traffic control interactions and one of the primary causes of aviation accidents and incidents. The language of air traffic control communication is characterised by the use of prescribed phraseologies, and when these are missing, plain language becomes a dominant feature. During plain language use mitigation is recorded as a feature of communication and described as an attribute of communication in crews classified as high in safety performance. The present study departs from this observation and seeks to examine the linguistic features for rapport management in air traffic control in non-routine situations in the Malaysian context. Managing the pilot–controller relationship is categorised as one of the dominant communicative functions in air traffic control and a category that is associated with the use of politeness markers. An examination of the language functions in this category and their associated forms vis-à-vis features of politeness are considered useful for training in air traffic communication. Pragmatics is used in this study as the approach to discourse analysis and Spencer-Oatey’s (2000b) understanding of politeness as ‘rapport management’ is employed as the framework for data analysis. The study draws on both audio-recordings of radiotelephony communication in role-play situations involving expert Malaysian controllers taking on roles as pilot and controller, as well as transcripts of real-life radiotelephony communication between Malaysian controllers and international pilots. The findings show that the interactions are primarily oriented to rapport-maintenance. The linguistic devices for rapport management include justifications, terms of address, conventionally polite expressions such as ‘please’, modals, and conditional language use. Rapport management is shown to help foster shared mindfulness and team thinking between controllers and pilots.

Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 21:1 (2011), 77–96. doi 10.1075/japc.21.1.05par issn 0957–6851 / e-issn 1569–9838 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

78

Shamala Paramasivam

Introduction Smooth running of operations in and around air traffic control settings crucially relies on effective communication: relevant aviation staff — air traffic controllers, pilots, ground operators, meteorologists, weather forecasters, emergency personnel — all depend on communication to carry out and coordinate their activities. Obtaining and transferring information from one party to another, issuing and responding to instructions, making and responding to requests, confirming information, issuing and responding to clearances, maintaining situational awareness and a myriad of other related functions are some of the typical activities in aviation. Central to these activities are humans who are responsible for them. Studies of aviation accidents and incidents reveal that 70% of aviation mishaps are a result of communication problems and nearly three-quarters of these accidents and incidents are a result of human error (Wells and Rodrigues, 2003). Some of the contributing factors are pilot fatigue, controller workload, stress, the use of nonstandard phraseologies, language, group interaction and crew resource management, decision making and information processing, memory and message length, and so forth (Cushing, 1994; McMillan, 1998; Mohd, 2007; Tiewtrakul, 2007). Cushing (1994) elaborates on how language-based problems have contributed to miscommunication between pilots and controllers. The use of ambiguous words, phrases, homophony, punctuation, intonation, accent and speech acts are some of the possible causes of language-related controller–pilot misunderstandings. Howard (2003), in addition, shows how linguistic features of politeness and mitigation can be contributing factors to miscommunication in pilot–controller interactions. The present study departs from the understanding that communication and the human factor are pivotal to effective air traffic control operations — where language use may be the source of serious problems — and seeks to analyse radiotelephony communication between controllers and pilots in Malaysia. The paper aims to examine the types of linguistic devices used to establish rapport between controllers and pilots. Implications are then drawn for training in language use for air traffic control.

Air traffic control and the controller–pilot relationship The mission of air traffic control is to ensure ‘safe, efficient conduct of aircraft flights’ and ‘to maintain a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic’ both in national and international space (Airservices Australia 1995, cited in McMillan, 1998: 8). The air traffic control system thus coordinates movement of aircraft operations at an airport and in the air to ensure that aircrafts are always kept at a

© 2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Rapport management in air traffic control in Malaysian aviation discourse

safe distance apart from one another. In connection with this, the functions of air traffic control are primarily to prevent collisions of aircrafts, to maintain orderly flow of traffic, to provide advice and information for safe and efficient conduct of flights, and to notify relevant organisations about aircrafts in need of search and rescue aid and to assist these organisations whenever necessary (ICAO, 2001). The heart of the air traffic system is the air traffic controller who works closely with pilots and related agencies in order to realise the goals of the air traffic system. The controller and pilot thus share a close working relationship. While pilots perform the actual flying of the aircraft, controllers ensure the safety of the aircraft in relation to other aircrafts both on the ground and in the air. The communication between them (known as radiotelephony) involves radio transmissions and depends largely on voice only to convey, receive and interpret messages. Although they are in close alliance, they have different social roles that result in different power positions: controllers generally occupy a higher power position than pilots. This is mainly because the controller has a wider view of the airspace volume and knowledge of the air traffic situation compared to the pilot. While the controller simultaneously directs several aircrafts climbing, descending and crossing the pilot only manages the aircraft he flies (Nolan, 1994). The pilot therefore relies on the controller and in relation to this Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 100 notes that ‘an aircraft shall comply with air traffic control instructions’ and ‘the pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for compliance with air traffic control clearances and air traffic control instructions’ (cited in McMillan, 1998: 11). The pilot therefore is expected to receive advice and accept instructions from the controller and act upon them both in routine and non-routine situations.

Politeness and related studies of air traffic control Since the main goal of air traffic control is to promote safe and efficient flying, the language of air traffic control is concerned primarily with the transmission of accurate information. The discourse of air traffic control is thus rule-governed. It is regulated by phraseologies that only have one meaning in the context of international aviation. These phraseologies focus solely on the communicative needs in aviation which are mainly to initiate, carry out and complete a specified course of action (ICAO, 2004). However, much of the research in aviation discourse and communication has revealed that in real-life aviation discourse is also governed by social elements of talk, especially when unforeseen or unpredictable events arise — such as fire, bomb threats, bird hazards, runway incursions and so forth — for which there are limited phraseologies to draw upon to manage the situations. Other than the use of phraseologies to deal with these situations, the ability to use


79

80 Shamala Paramasivam

English as a plain, general language also arises. During these situations politeness and tact play a role in the transmission and interpretation of messages. The study of politeness from the perspective of linguistics is varied, ranging from the ‘conversational maxim’ view (Lakoff, 1973; Leech, 1983) to ‘face management’ (Brown and Levinson, 1987), ‘conversational contract’ (Fraser, 1990) and ‘rapport management’ (Spencer-Oatey, 2000b). For the purposes of the present study politeness is approached as rapport management and the exercise of polite behaviour in oral interaction is viewed as efforts to establish and maintain harmonious relations. The term ‘rapport management’ (Spencer-Oatey, 2000a: 3) departs from the understanding that language in communication has the dual function of transmitting information and maintaining social relationships. With regard to this, rapport management concerns the relational aspect of language use where language is seen as a tool for the management of interpersonal relations, that is ‘the use of language to promote, maintain or threaten harmonious social relations’ (Spencer-Oatey, 2000a: 3). Rapport management is thus a way to approach politeness in communication, the central concern of which is the harmonious nature of social relationships. In relation to this understanding of politeness, the literature was reviewed for suitable studies in the aviation context to help inform the present work especially with regard to theory and methodology. The review revealed a number of studies that mainly investigate mitigation in aviation communication. They are Linde (1988), Fisher and Orasanu (2000), Howard (2003) and Hinrich (2008). Linde (1988) analysed crew communication during emergency and accident situations and found that mitigation is sensitive to social rank. Using Brown and Levinson’s approach to politeness her study showed that captains and first officers used negative politeness strategies such as giving reasons, framing a request as a suggestion, framing an order as a request, using modals, and ‘if ’ clauses to mitigate requests and orders, whilst positive politeness strategies involved the use of informal syntax, informal lexical choice, and use of ‘us’ rather than ‘me’. Fisher and Orasanu (2000) also examined mitigation in crew communication and found that mitigation was status-bound. When preventing and correcting errors made by crew members captains’ utterances were direct and command-based while first officers were indirect, involving strategies like permission seeking questions, crew obligation statements, and hints. Howard (2003) concentrated on miscommunication in pilot–controller interactions and found that one-third of the interactions in his data included both mitigating strategies — qualifiers, hedges, tag questions, hesitations, titles, honorifics, minimisers — and conventional strategies such as greetings, sign offs and apologies. However, Howard found that polite behaviour had negative effects on communication: as mitigation increased, clarity decreased contributing to misunderstandings between pilots and controllers. Howard admits the valuable role



of politeness in aviation communication despite its negative effects and notes the necessity for further research as to how politeness should be managed in pilot– controller interactions for safe and effective communication. Hinrich (2008) looked at the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features of questions in routine aviation messages; findings included the use of politeness markers such as modals especially in requests, lexical phrases such as ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ as devices to reinforce requests, and courtesy markers such as ‘want’ to request for clarification and ‘just’ to mitigate request when specifying particular information. In sum, the literature suggests that although in theory the relational component of talk is not an aspect of aviation, evidence from data-based research points to the contrary. Mitigation and face work are pervasive in aviation communication. Mell (1991) accounts for this when he notes that in addition to conveying factual information, aviation transmissions also accomplish a variety of social functions, including ‘being polite … and displaying group membership’. Mell and Godmet (2002) further elaborate that air traffic control is regulated by communicative functions that fall into the following four categories: 1. 2. 3. 4.

triggering actions, sharing information, managing the pilot–controller relationship, managing the dialogue.

They explain that ‘triggering actions’ are the core of pilot–controller communications and this category is supported by actions that require sharing information between the two parties. The last two categories play a subordinate mediating role with regard to the first two. Although subordinate in nature, the language functions in these two categories are essential because of their effect on the success and efficiency of the air traffic communication. The communication in these categories is marked by politeness features which may be lexical such as the use of ‘please’ or grammatical structures such as ‘could you possibly give me …?’ (Mell and Godmet, 2002: 2) and so forth. The present study is rooted in the understanding that ‘aviation communication is polite communication’ (Howard 2003: 115) and focuses on the management of the controller–pilot relationship as an essential component of air traffic communication. Although a number of studies have looked at mitigation in aviation communication, to the best of my knowledge no study has investigated how rapport is managed between controllers and pilots. An examination of (a) the language functions in air traffic communication, and (b) their associated forms vis-àvis features of politeness, is considered useful for literacy in language use aimed at improving communication. The findings would also have pedagogical significance for training in aviation English.


81

82

Shamala Paramasivam

Rapport management in oral communication As already mentioned, the present study employs Spencer-Oatey’s (2000b) interpretation of politeness as rapport management. Although Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness is pervasive it was found to be unsuitable for the present study since it focuses on face-threatening acts (FTAs) for the display of politeness, while the present study aims to examine language use for managing rapport; this requires an approach to politeness that addresses multiple linguistic domains in addition to speech acts or the illocutionary domain for the analysis. Spencer-Oatey (2000b) suggests four interrelated domains other than the ‘illocutionary domain’ (speech acts): there is the ‘discourse domain’ (discourse content and structure such as topic choice and topic management), the ‘participation domain’ (procedural aspects of an exchange such as turn-taking and use/non-use of listener responses), the ‘stylistic domain’ (stylistic aspects such as tone, lexis, syntax, terms of address and honorifics) and the ‘non-verbal domain’ (non-verbal aspects such as gestures and eye contact) that play a role in the management of rapport. Amongst these domains the non-verbal one is irrelevant for the present study and hence left out of the analysis, since the genre investigated is dependent on voice-only for the conveyance and interpretation of messages. In managing harmony in relationships, a balance is sought between self and other, achieved through the management of face and ‘sociality rights’. Within each domain, Spencer-Oatey (2000b) notes a wide range of linguistic options that function as rapport management strategies such as choice of speech acts, intonation, tone, lexis, morphology, syntax, terms of address, honorifics and so on. She also goes on to note four types of rapport orientation in communication that can be inferred from the rapport management strategies used: ‘rapport-enhancement’ (a desire to strengthen or enhance harmonious relations), ‘rapport-maintenance’ (a desire to maintain or protect harmony in relationships), ‘rapport-neglect’ (a lack of concern in the quality of relations), and ‘rapport-challenge’ (a desire to challenge or impair harmonious relations).

Research design The study is situated within pragmatics (speech act theory) and employs discourse analysis as the main analytic tool whilst adopting a theoretical understanding of polite behaviour as ‘rapport management’.



Data collection The present study utilises two sources of data: 1. Audio-recordings of air traffic interactions between Malaysian controllers taking on roles as pilots, controllers and other related agencies in the air traffic environment in role-plays depicting non-routine situations; 2. Transcripts of real-life interactions between Malaysian controllers and international pilots. The data obtained from role-plays were collected in a test situation.1 As part of an Aviation English test that was conducted on Malaysian controllers from June 2007 to March 2008, role-play scenarios that simulate real-life traffic situations in nonroutine settings were given to the candidates. A chart representing the aircrafts involved and the runways in use was given to the candidates to study for about a minute after which the role-play began. The role-play involved two or three roles (pilot, controller, and related agencies such as supervisor, emergency unit, etc). The roles of pilot and related agencies were played by air traffic officers who are representatives of a Malaysian aviation organisation that administered the Aviation English test. The air traffic officers were experts in using English as a lingua franca, active air traffic controllers operating in Malaysia as well as qualified and experienced trainers at a Malaysian aviation academy. During the role-play, the officer taking on the role of pilot initiated the interaction and the candidate was required to respond appropriately as a controller would in the given scenario. During the role-play there was a screen that separated the candidate from the testers. This was to simulate air traffic environment as far as possible where pilots and controllers are invisible to each other and depend solely on voice for communication. The scenarios were designed using the list of non-routine situations stipulated by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO, 2004). The duration of the role-plays were approximately 10 minutes each and during this time the candidate was allowed to make notes. The study utilised six audio recordings of candidates who had passed the Aviation English test at either Band 5 or 6 on the ICAO Aviation English for Language Proficiency rating scale. The recordings are thus considered to be language use reflective of expert users of Aviation English in the Malaysian context. Role play is recognised as an effective technique for investigating communicative acts in pragmatics research (Kasper and Dahl, 1991; Kasper and Rose, 2002). Research that has employed this technique for investigating politeness patterns in communicative acts include Scarcella (1979), Trosborg (1987) and Felix-Brasdefer (2006). Kasper and Dahl note that open role plays are a rich data source as they closely represent oral production in authentic conditions: they allow full operation of the turn taking mechanism, impromptu planning decisions, and negotiation of


83

84

Shamala Paramasivam

global and local goals, as well as negotiation of meaning. Kasper and Dahl also add that the method allows for the study of speech act performance in terms of strategy choice and politeness, the kinds of interlocutor responses that are elicited by specific strategic choices, and how these responses in turn determine the speaker’s next move. Since the present study examines the kinds of linguistic devices used to establish rapport in air traffic interactions, role play data gathered during the administration of the test is seen as a suitable data source. Despite the advantages of role play as a method for data collection, Kasper and Dahl alert the researcher about the validity of the data collected using this technique, especially for the study of politeness behaviour. The technique may result in participants displaying behaviour that is not representative of real-life practices. There may be for instance a tendency for participants to be overly polite in a role play situation, and this is aggravated in the present study since the role play is part of a test; respondents are either testing or being tested for oral communication. In order to circumvent this problem, the present study adds a second method for data collection. The study employs data from real-life interactions in the radiotelephony environment as complementary to the role-play data. The second source of data for this study involves four transcripts of real-life air traffic interactions involving non-routine situations between Malaysian controllers and international pilots obtained from the Malaysian aviation organisation that conducted the Aviation English test. This data set is quite limited due to confidentiality; the call signs of the aircrafts involved in these transcripts have therefore been changed.

Data analysis The analysis involved several steps. After the speech data was transcribed, the language functions involved in the interactions were coded using the list of communicative functions in air traffic control (ICAO, 2004). Subsequently, linguistic devices that reflect rapport management were coded using as a template: a list of linguistic features for politeness in air traffic control culled from the available literature (Linde, 1988; Fisher and Orasanu, 2000; Howard, 2003; Hinrich 2008). These include conventionally polite expressions such as ‘please’ and ‘thank you’, terms of address, justifications, modals, and conditional language. After the data had been coded for language functions in air traffic control and linguistic devices for politeness, I analysed each interaction in order to establish how rapport was managed between the participants of the interaction, using Spencer-Oatey’s (2000b) notion of rapport management as a guide. Interviews were conducted with an experienced air traffic controller and a pilot both of whom served as informants on the findings from and interpretations of the interactions.



Findings This section focuses on the findings and addresses the research questions. In the role-play situations, the communicative functions used were mainly those required by information sharing between pilots and controllers. These actions were necessary for the pilot and controller to work collaboratively towards a solution. Their actions showed that they worked cooperatively to build an accurate perception of the current state of the non-routine situation, in order to formulate a correct judgement on which a decision could be based. Actions were accomplished successfully and effectively for which certain linguistic features of rapport management were responsible.

Indirectness and justifications Justification in the form of reasons was used as a rapport management strategy to gain cooperation from the counterpart with regard to the act performed. In Example 1, the pilot of ‘November Bravo Xray Wiski November’ (call sign of the aircraft) had lost his bearings and needed assistance from the controller to locate his position. In lines 3 and 5 the lost pilot makes an implicit request for information about his location or position. The act is inductively structured; the pilot provides the background to his problem, saying that he is not sure where he is and needs the controller to provide his location. This request is made indirectly in line 3 (‘we are not sure where we are now’) and line 5 (‘we are not sure which er exact location where we are’). There is no explicit request for a location. The request is implied in the pilot’s explanation of his problem. The explanation acts as justification for the request which incidentally is implied within the explanation. This is against the norm in aviation discourse where speech acts such as requests are prescribed to be explicit and clear. The transcript shows how in practice there may be variations. The elaborate explanation of the problem situation by the pilot in lines 3 and 5 could be an effort on his part to provide the controller with an awareness of the situation as a strategy to get the controller to cooperate with him in providing his location. Example 1. (Role-play) C: Controller (Role played by Test candidate) P: Pilot of November Bravo Xray Wiski November (Role played by Tester) 1. P: This is this is er November Bravo Xray Wiski November on one two zero decimal two do you read?


85


2. C: November Bravo Xray Wiski November Kuching Control reading you loud and clear 3. P: November Bravo Xray Wiski November (.) sir we departed a yatch out in the sea about one and a half hours ago and we encountered bad weather and we returned back to the position of the yatch and we cannot find the yatch ah we are not sure where we are now ah we have navigation problems we were struck by lighting ah do you copy? 4. C: November Bravo confirm you wish to return to the yatch and your navigational (.) system has been struck by lighting 5. P: ah November Bravo Xray Wiski November yes affirm sir but we have returned to the location where the yatch was and we could not find the yatch earlier and our best bet was to get to the coast and we are heading towards the coast and er we are not sure which er exact location where we are 6. C: November Bravo Xray Wiski November report your altitude

In Example 2 the pilot of Malaysia 1286 is faced with terrorists on his aircraft and needs help to manage the situation. In line 8, the controller (C1) gives an explicit directive to a fellow controller (C2) (‘please land your aircraft please’) and supports it with a reason (‘I have no control over the traffic’). In the preceding line (line 6) he provides background information about the situation encountered by the pilot of Malaysia 1286 that helps support his forthcoming directive in line 8. Justifications functions as a strategy to get his interlocutor to cooperate in managing the emergency situation in hand. In line 9 C2 complies with C1’s directive. Example 2. (Role-play) P: Pilot of Malaysia 1286 (Role played by Tester 1) C1: Controller (Role played by Test candidate) C2: Controller (Role played by Tester 2) 1. P: Approach Malaysia 1286 2. C1: Malaysia 1286 go ahead 3. P: Malaysia 1286 we have been requested to descend to 1500 feet and to hold over KLCC they want to talk to the Prime Minister 4. C1: Malaysia 1286 are you visual? 5. P: Affirm we have the city in sight. 6. C1: Malaysia 1286 Simpang Approach 5. C2: Go ahead 6. C1: Simpang I got a MAS 787 being hijacked probably going towards the city area (.) aircraft descending at 1500 it’s beyond our control because the intruder has a pistol at the pilot. Aircraft will be holding over KLCC at 1500 7. C2: Copied our circuit active 10500



8. C1: Please land your aircraft please (heightened voice) because I have no control over the traffic 9. C2: OK we we will make all our aircraft cooperate make a fullstop here

Similar pragmalinguistic features were found in the data from real-life interactions. In line 1 the pilot of MAX 957 requests to turn left heading 130 as a result of weather conditions (due weather). However, in line 2 the controller at Approach South at a Malaysian airport instructs MAX 957 to turn right heading 180. In line 3 the pilot notes that he is unable to turn right and explains the reason for this (will take us right direct to the CB), and re-submits his request to turn left. The controller again does not approve the request and gives an explanation for his action (due traffic). In line 5 MAX 957 acknowledges the denial. In line 6 however MAX 957’s request to deviate left in order to avoid the weather is approved after the controller has established vertical separation between MAX 957 and IAS 218. When reasons are given to justify an act, it makes the act seem necessary. In air traffic interactions this strategy seems to remove the responsibility of the act in question from the speaker and place it on a situational factor. This helps to gain the understanding and cooperation of the other party. Example 3. (Real-life interaction) P1: Pilot of MAX 957 P2: Pilot of IAS 218 C: Controller at Approach South (at a Malaysian Airport) 1. P1: MAX 957 request left heading 130 due weather 2. C: MAX 957 turn right heading 180 3. P1: Unable to turn right heading (.) will take us right direct to the CB request left heading sir 4. C: Negative negative due traffic maintain (background conversation) yah SIA maintaining 5000 5. P1: Roger MAX 957 6. C: IAS 218 maintain 5000 due traffic 7. P2: Roger 5000 IAS 218 8. C: MAX 957 climb FL140 left heading is approved

Terms of address The term of address ‘sir’ is used as a rapport management strategy to gain the cooperation of the other. This is evident in Example 1 line 3 and Example 3 line 3. In Example 1 it extends respect by addressing the controller’s status and appeals for the controller’s cooperation in teasing out the pilot’s inductively-structured


87

88

Shamala Paramasivam

problem situation. In this example, the term of address works together with the inductive strategy to pave the way for smooth management of the problem. In Example 3, ‘sir’ can be said to function as a mitigating device for the request. It addresses the controller’s status and appeals for his cooperation in approving the request. Here the address term works together with the situational explanation given in the same turn to affect the request. Example 4 (line 1) includes a further instance of a similar use of ‘sir’. The address term works in tandem with justifications (‘we have little control over the aircraft we are struggling with the aircraft’) to mitigate the pilot’s request to vector off traffic. Example 4. (Role play) C: Controller (Role played by Test candidate) P1: Pilot of Malaysia 637 (Role played by Tester 1) P2: Pilot of Angkasa 592 (Role played by Tester 2) 1. P1: Malaysia 637 be advised sir we have little control over the aircraft we are struggling with the aircraft and er if there is traffic ahead of us please can you vector off the traffic 2. C: Roger Angkasa 592 due to emergency aircraft turn left on the heading 180 for avoidance 3. P2: Angkasa 592 turning left heading 180

Conventionally polite expressions Conventionally polite expressions such as ‘please’ emerged in rapport management. During critical moments in the discourse the expression served as an appeal for cooperation. In Example 2 (line 8), Example 4 (line 1) and Example 5 (line 5) ‘please’ appealed to the hearer to recognise that an effort is being put forth by the speaker, and that the hearer’s expended effort will be appreciated. In Example 2 the expression is used with an explicit instruction (‘land your aircraft’). ‘Please’ in this instance not only reduces the imposition of the instruction but also heightens the criticality of the need for the fellow controller to cooperate in complying with the directive in the face of an emergency. Likewise, in Example 4 ‘please’ not only mitigates the request to vector off traffic but also appeals to the controller to fulfil the request. Example 5 displays a similar situation. In line 5 the controller issues a directive to the fire brigade (‘will you rush out please’). The directive however is mitigated with ‘please’ and is phrased as a question that also serves to mitigate imposition. (This was probably the controller’s response to the lack of reaction on the part of


Rapport management in air traffic control in Malaysian aviation discourse 89

the fire brigade personnel to the urgency of the matter). In line 7 the controller provids a description of the aircraft on fire (‘there is a bright fire on the starboard side (.) his main wheels broken off and there is fire’) that helps heighten the awareness of the fire brigade personnel about the emergency of the situation. The use of ‘OK’ emphasises the controller’s notification of the aircraft being in full emergency. These strategies (the expressions ‘please’, ‘OK’, and the description) works jointly to promote a feeling of urgency that helps trigger cooperation between the interlocutors in their effort to manage the unexpected situation. Example 5. (Real-life interaction) C: Controller at a Malaysian Control Tower AFB: Airport Fire Brigade 1. C: 2. AFB: 3. C: 4. AFB: 5. C: 6. AFB: 7. C:

Hello! FB Hello! FB is that the fire brigade? Fire brigade control tower here Hello! There is an aircraft that has crashed and there is fire on the aircraft What fire is it? Aircraft fire. Full emergency. Aircraft is on fire, will you rush out please Full emergency or declared emergency? Full emergency full emergency 68 on board I think there is a bright fire on the starboard side (.) his main wheels broken off and there is fire. Full emergency OK 8. AFB: OK we’re coming keep us informed

Modals and conditional language Modals and conditional language are linguistic features that address dynamic flight situations (Hinrich, 2008). The modal ‘could’ in line 8 in Example 6 is a typical example of this: it gives a probable location of the aircraft (‘your position could be … of Kuching airfield’). In a similar way, when using conditional language the controller gives the pilot a choice of action (‘can you still site the Boeing and follow the Boeing to the airfield if you wish to proceed to the airfield’). The construction here addresses the dynamic situation and ever-changing nature of flight, and engages the pilot in joint decision-making. When the controller notes a probable location of the pilot’s aircraft in line 8 he prompts the pilot to look out for inconsistencies in his position. Likewise, in his use of the conditional ‘if ’ (line 8) he alerts the pilot about his line of action. The controller gives the pilot the option to act. The linguistic form addresses the pilot’s competence, that it is his evaluation and assessment of the problem situation and his decision for problem solution. This language use promotes joint decision-making between them.



Line 9 displays the pilot’s response to the controller’s suggested action. The pilot takes up the option to act and decides not to take the controller’s suggestion. His decision is signalled and mitigated with the hesitation ‘er’ followed by the expression ‘not at the moment’, which mitigates his decision against the controller’s suggestion, and the respectful address ‘sir’. The structure protects the controller’s face as a result of the pilot’s decision not to follow the controller’s suggestion. In order to solve the problem situation, the pilot finally makes a request for a magnetic heading (‘can you give us a rough magnetic heading’). His request is mitigated by the modal verb ‘can’ followed by a justification for the request (‘we can fly our coffers are still working’). The mitigated request structure appeals for cooperation from the controller to fulfil the request. When the controller displays lack of understanding of the problem (line 10) the pilot paraphrases his request (line 11); he cooperates to steer the controller through his intended message. Conditional language use is evidenced again in line 14. The modal ‘should’ denotes the controller’s projected heading of the aircraft; the heading is subject to the accuracy of the aircraft’s location. This structure reflects the constantly changing nature of flight situations: it alerts the pilot to notice discrepancies in his location and in this way engages him into jointly deciding on the line of action. Example 6. (Role play) C: Controller (Role played by Test candidate) P: Pilot of November Bravo Xray Wiski November (Role played by Tester) 1. P: November Bravo Xray Wiski November we can’t get the transponder working sir er we are approaching the coast now our last position is er was er last position from yatch was er north east of zero one four zero one one zero three zero east 2. C: November Bravo are you picking up Kuching ? Are you equipped? 3. P: November Bravo Xray Wiski November I think all our navigational equipment are shattered sir and we just saw a seven three seven ahead about a minute or two ago passing ahead of us 4. C: November Bravo Xray Wiski November 5. P: Roger 6. C: The Boeing seven three seven ah is er on Airways er Golf four six correction Golf five eight zero aircraft is er heading towards the Kuching airfield making approach for runway two five. Confirm the Boeing is to your ah (3.0) is to your ah (3.0) is to your right 7. P1: November Bravo Xray Wiski November we sight the traffic some two to three minutes ago sir it was a red and white stripped aircraft had a small logo on its tail and er it was heading from our left to the right and we are approaching the coast now



8. C: November Bravo er your position could be to the north east of Kuching airfield can you still site the Boeing and follow the Boeing to the airfield if you wish to proceed to the airfield? 9. P1: er not at the moment sir we are at the coast can you give us a rough magnetic heading we can fly our coffers are still working 10. C: Say again? 11. P1: Our coffers are still working sir and can you give us a magnetic heading so that we can fly to the airfield? 12. C: November Bravo Xray Wiski November 13. P1: Roger 14. C: Fly on the heading of er (.) two one zero two one zero if your present position expected to be north east of the airfield on the heading of two one zero you should be ah flying you should be heading towards Kuching city which is north of the airfield

Similar examples of modals and conditional language use are also evident in the real-life interactions. In Example 7 the pilot of Alaska 261 encounters a jammed stabiliser and has problems maintaining altitude. In line 3 he requests for a change in configuration and for the possibility to make the change over the bay (‘I’d like to do that out there over the bay if I may’). The modal ‘would’ and the conditional ‘if I may’ engage the controller in joint decision-making. The controller is prompted to consider the pilot’s request for inconsistencies before he approves it. The structure addresses the controller’s position in the air traffic system as having a wider view of the airspace volume and knowledge of the air traffic situation. Example 7. (Real-life interaction) P: Pilot of Alaska 261 C: Controller at a Malaysian Control Tower 1. P: LA Alaska 261 uh we’re with you at 225 we have a jammed stabiliser and ah we’re maintaining altitude with difficulty uh but uh we can maintain altitude we think and our intention is to land at Kuala Lumpur 2. C: Alaska 261 Control roger uh you’re cleared to Kuala Lumpur via present position and uh you want lower now or what do you want to do sir 3. P: Control Alaska 261 I need to uh get down about ten change my configuration make sure I can control the jet and I’d like to do that out there over the bay if I may 4. C: OK Alaska 261 roger that stand by there

In Example 8 line 3 the radar controller who has lost his connection with the control tower requests the pilot to call tower and convey a message. His request is mitigated with the modal ‘could’ and the polite expression ‘please’; it is also


91

92

Shamala Paramasivam

preceded with an explanation (‘I lost my phone connection to the tower’) that justifies it. These strategies work to reduce the imposition of the request and pave the way for cooperation. Example 8. (Real-life interaction) C: Controller at Malaysian Radar Sector P: Pilot of AEF 1135 1. C: AEF 1135? 2. P: AEF 1135 go ahead sir 3. C: I lost my phone connection to the tower ah could you please call them on your second set ah 124 decimal 35 and ah tell them you’re coming ILS 24 with ah twenty miles now? 4. P: OK will do 5. C: Thank you And AEF 1135 descend 5500 6. P: Descending 5500 AEF 1135

Discussion Since the objective of air traffic control system is to promote safe and efficient flight, its discourse is guided by concerns for accuracy and efficiency (Morrow et al., 1994). The language of air traffic control is therefore transaction-oriented and governed by fixed rules and phraseologies. The genre does not address relational components such as face and identity. However, studies in aviation have shown that politeness and mitigation are features of air traffic communication, a finding supported also by the present article. The discourse of air traffic control emerges as a polite discourse; a range of linguistic devices were found in the interactions analysed which were primarily oriented to rapport maintenance between controllers and pilots. The linguistic devices found are listed below.

Linguistic devices for rapport management in air traffic interaction 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Justifications Inductive rhetorical strategy Terms of address Conventionally polite expressions Modals Conditional language use



These devices work interdependently, often overlapping and occurring simultaneously. For instance the use of an indirect and inductively structured speech act to perform a face threatening act, such as requesting information, is used together with justifications and with ‘sir’ as an address form (see e.g. Example 1). Justifications are used concurrently with conventional expressions like ‘please’ (cf. Example 2), and modals are used along with the conditional ‘if ’, the polite expression ‘please’, the address term ‘sir’, and justifications (cf. Example 4). The findings of the study clearly show that the management of rapport between controllers and pilots and other relevant parties in the air traffic exchange is a salient feature of air traffic control. The pragmalinguistic strategies work together to create and maintain a harmonious ambience between the people involved in the interaction. In turn, harmony helps the interlocutors to engage in a cooperative frame of mind that enables crucial core actions in air traffic control (information sharing and triggering actions) to be activated and performed. Krieger (2005) notes that when handling a crisis situation, aircrew members need to work together well and they need to do so mindfully. She discusses mindful behaviour as ‘shared mindfulness’, which she defines as an active or involved state in interpersonal interaction where the individuals actively attend, respond to, and try to perceive information accurately (Krieger, 2005: 138). Together, the individuals continually update, are attuned, and open to incoming information that is unexpected. Shared mindful behaviour promotes team thinking that helps solving problems, making decisions, and also increases the quality of the decisions taken. Krieger notes that some of the communicative behaviours that display shared mindfulness are behaviours that seek information, such as seeking input or opinion from one another, seeking clarification or confirmation of information, verbalising new information, and demonstrating joint ownership in the decision making process. I contend that in order to display mindful communicative behaviours in interaction, the participants of the communication, first and foremost, need to have the attitudes that promote these behaviours. They need to be open and fair-minded to incoming information, adaptable and flexible to changing facets of a situation, and accommodative and adjustable to one another. These attitudes are noted as key factors for successful interpersonal interaction and communication in intercultural encounters (Nair-Venugopal, 2003). Politeness is evidenced as a tool that fosters these attitudes in people in workplace communication when dealing with face threatening acts like proposing, demanding, and disagreeing (Paramasivam, 2007, 2008). Two studies by the author of this paper (cf. Paramasivam, 2007, 2008) contend that since politeness attends to face and identity, it makes claims for goodwill in interpersonal relations and creates an atmosphere of sociability that can help people resolve differences and converge to achieve common interests.


93


Politeness is a tool that can foster cooperation and partnering skills among people by inducing the attitudes needed for working collaboratively. In light of the quality of politeness as a tool for building relationships in communication and interpersonal relations, I contend that politeness can function as a device to foster the kind of communicative behaviours and frame of mind that is needed for shared mindfulness and team thinking in air traffic communication in order to manage crisis situations. The findings of the present study show that efforts at rapport maintenance facilitate the performance of core communicative functions for dealing with unexpected situations in air traffic control. The linguistic devices identified in this study create and maintain harmony by constructing a conducive atmosphere for communicating transactional matters in air traffic exchanges.

Implications One important implication of the findings of the present study for communication training in air traffic control is the need to raise awareness among airmen of the relevance of polite discourse in the genre. They need to be made conscious of politeness as a linguistic tool for fostering the attitudes in people that are needed to help them engage in a mode of thinking (team thinking) and behaving (shared mindfulness) that increase teamwork, so that air traffic control may be executed smoothly and effectively. Communication training could include teaching politeness and its importance for building teamwork attitudes and behaviours in controllers and pilots, as well as other aviation-related personnel. In relation to this point, the present study’s other implication is that effective air traffic control requires more than mere linguistic competence in English: pragmatic competence is also crucial for successful communication. While linguistic competence involves ability to use aspects of English — grammar, vocabulary, and so forth — to understand and convey messages in the specialised context of aviation, pragmatic competence involves the ability to use the language strategically to manage interpersonal relationships and aspects of face and identity. Consideration of rapport management deserves a distinct place in Aviation English teaching and course design, especially with regards to how rapport management is realised in intercultural air traffic communication across cultures (Spencer-Oatey, 2000a). Different cultures create and establish rapport differently and have different assessments of language use for establishing solidarity and harmony. The effect of cultural diversity on rapport management practices and outcomes in intercultural air traffic communication is thus among the areas requiring further investigation.



Note 1. The test involved one candidate, i.e. a controller, and three testers, comprising two air traffic officers and one linguist. I was involved as a linguist tester and was granted permission by the testing organisation to use the recordings for the purpose of academic research.

References Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cushing, S. (1994). Fatal words: Communication clashes and aircraft crashes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. Manchester/Northampton: St. Jerome Publishing. Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2006). Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(12), 2158–2187. Fisher, U., and Orasanu, J. (2000). Error-challenging strategies: Their role in preventing and correcting errors. Retrieved 25 November 2008 from: http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~fischer/ HFES2000.pdf Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219–236. Kasper, G., and Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215–247. Kasper, G., and Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. London: WileyBlackwell. Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s. In: Corum, C., SmithStark, T., and Weiser, A. (Eds.) Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292–305). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman. Linde, C. (1988). The quantitative study of communicative success: Politeness and accidents in aviation discourse. Language in Society, 17(3), 375–399. Hinrich, S. W. (2008). The use of questions in international pilot and air traffic controller communication. PhD dissertation, Oklahoma State University. Howard, J. W. (2003). ‘Tower am I cleared to land?’: Pilot-ATC (mis)communication. PhD dissertation. Bowling Green State University. International Civil Aviation Organisation. (2001). Annex 11 — Air traffic services (13th Edition). Montreal: International Civil Aviation Organisation. International Civil Aviation Organisation. (2004). Manual on the implementation of ICAO language proficiency requirements (Doc 9835 AN/453). Montreal: International Civil Aviation Organisation. Krieger, J. L. (2005). Shared mindfulness in cockpit crisis situations: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Communication, 42, 135–167. McMillan, D. (1998). ‘…Say again?…’ Miscommunications in air traffic control. MEd dissertation. Queensland University of Technology. Mell, J. (1991). What is not standard in real radiotelephony. Paper presented at the 4th International Civil Aviation English Association Forum.


95

96 Shamala Paramasivam Mell, J., and Godmet, C. (2002). Communicative functions in language for aviation radiotelephony. Retrieved 25 November 2008 from: http://air.gtelp.co.kr/Board/air_pds/file/checklist2.pdf Mohd, N. G. (2007). Air traffic control radiotelephony safety: Investigating the English second language users’ perspective. PhD dissertation. Cranfield University. Morrow, D., Rodvold, M. and Lee, A. (1994). Nonroutine transactions in controller-pilot communication. Discourse Processes, 17, 235–258. Nair-Venugopal, S. (2003). Approximations of social reality as interpretations of culture: Extending a framework of analysis in intercultural communication. The Journal of International Communication, 9(2), 13–28. Nolan, M. S. (1994). Fundamentals of air traffic control. California: Wadsworth Publishing. Paramasivam, S. (2007). Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree: Polite disagreement in negotiation discourse. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(2), 91–116. Paramasivam, S. (2008). Power and politeness in negotiation discourse. In Jacobson, R. (Ed.) The pulse of a Malaysian university: Ethno- and sociolinguistic issues and the TESOL dimension (pp. 37–68). New York: Peter Lang. Scarcella, R. (1979). On speaking politely in a second language. In Yorio, C. A., Perkins, K., and Schachter, J. (Eds.) On TESOL’ 79 (pp. 275–287). Washington, DC: TESOL. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000a). Introduction: Language, culture and rapport management. In Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 1–8). London and New York: Continuum. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000b). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). Spencer-Pater, H. (Ed. 2000) Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. London and New York: Continuum. Tiewtrakul, T. (2007). Analysis of approach controller-pilot communications. MSc dissertation. Cranfield University. Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 147– 167. Wells, A. T., and Rodrigues, C. C. (2004). Commercial aviation safety. New York: McGraw Hill.

Author’s address Shamala Paramasivam Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication Universiti Putra Malaysia 43400 UPM Serdang, Malaysia [email protected]
