Tis is a contribution from Journal of Asian Pacic Communication 21:1

2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company

Tis electronic le may not be altered in any way.
Te author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF le to generate printed copies to
be used by way of oprints, for their personal use only.
Permission is granted by the publishers to post this le on a closed server which is accessible
to members (students and sta) only of the authors/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 rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Journal of Asian Pacifc Communication 21:1 (2011), 7796. doi 10.1075/japc.21.1.05par
issn 09576851 / e-issn 15699838 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Rapport management in air trafc control
in Malaysian aviation discourse
Shamala Paramasivam
Oral communication is documented as the weakest link in air trafc control
interactions and one of the primary causes of aviation accidents and incidents.
Te language of air trafc 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
classifed as high in safety performance. Te present study departs from this
observation and seeks to examine the linguistic features for rapport manage-
ment in air trafc control in non-routine situations in the Malaysian context.
Managing the pilotcontroller relationship is categorised as one of the dominant
communicative functions in air trafc 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--vis features of politeness are
considered useful for training in air trafc communication. Pragmatics is used in
this study as the approach to discourse analysis and Spencer-Oateys (2000b) un-
derstanding of politeness as rapport management is employed as the framework
for data analysis. Te 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 radiotele-
phony communication between Malaysian controllers and international pilots.
Te fndings show that the interactions are primarily oriented to rapport-main-
tenance. Te linguistic devices for rapport management include justifcations,
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.
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
78 Shamala Paramasivam
Introduction
Smooth running of operations in and around air trafc control settings crucially
relies on efective communication: relevant aviation staf air trafc controllers,
pilots, ground operators, meteorologists, weather forecasters, emergency person-
nel 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, confrming infor-
mation, issuing and responding to clearances, maintaining situational awareness
and a myriad of other related functions are some of the typical activities in avia-
tion. 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 re-
sult 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 non-
standard phraseologies, language, group interaction and crew resource manage-
ment, 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. Te use of ambiguous words,
phrases, homophony, punctuation, intonation, accent and speech acts are some of
the possible causes of language-related controllerpilot misunderstandings. How-
ard (2003), in addition, shows how linguistic features of politeness and mitigation
can be contributing factors to miscommunication in pilotcontroller interactions.
Te present study departs from the understanding that communication and
the human factor are pivotal to efective air trafc control operations where
language use may be the source of serious problems and seeks to analyse radio-
telephony communication between controllers and pilots in Malaysia. Te 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 trafc control.
Air trafc control and the controllerpilot relationship
Te mission of air trafc control is to ensure safe, efcient conduct of aircraf
fights and to maintain a safe, orderly and expeditious fow of air trafc both
in national and international space (Airservices Australia 1995, cited in McMil-
lan, 1998: 8). Te air trafc control system thus coordinates movement of aircraf
operations at an airport and in the air to ensure that aircrafs are always kept at a
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Rapport management in air trafc control in Malaysian aviation discourse 79
safe distance apart from one another. In connection with this, the functions of air
trafc control are primarily to prevent collisions of aircrafs, to maintain orderly
fow of trafc, to provide advice and information for safe and efcient conduct of
fights, and to notify relevant organisations about aircrafs in need of search and
rescue aid and to assist these organisations whenever necessary (ICAO, 2001). Te
heart of the air trafc system is the air trafc controller who works closely with
pilots and related agencies in order to realise the goals of the air trafc system.
Te controller and pilot thus share a close working relationship. While pilots
perform the actual fying of the aircraf, controllers ensure the safety of the aircraf
in relation to other aircrafs both on the ground and in the air. Te communica-
tion 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 diferent social roles that result in diferent
power positions: controllers generally occupy a higher power position than pilots.
Tis is mainly because the controller has a wider view of the airspace volume and
knowledge of the air trafc situation compared to the pilot. While the control-
ler simultaneously directs several aircrafs climbing, descending and crossing the
pilot only manages the aircraf he fies (Nolan, 1994). Te pilot therefore relies on
the controller and in relation to this Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 100 notes
that an aircraf shall comply with air trafc control instructions and the pilot in
command of an aircraf is responsible for compliance with air trafc control clear-
ances and air trafc control instructions (cited in McMillan, 1998: 11). Te 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 trafc control
Since the main goal of air trafc control is to promote safe and efcient fying,
the language of air trafc control is concerned primarily with the transmission of
accurate information. Te discourse of air trafc control is thus rule-governed. It
is regulated by phraseologies that only have one meaning in the context of inter-
national aviation. Tese phraseologies focus solely on the communicative needs
in aviation which are mainly to initiate, carry out and complete a specifed 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 fre, 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
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
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.
Te study of politeness from the perspective of linguistics is varied, ranging
from the conversational maxim view (Lakof, 1973; Leech, 1983) to face manage-
ment (Brown and Levinson, 1987), conversational contract (Fraser, 1990) and rap-
port management (Spencer-Oatey, 2000b). For the purposes of the present study
politeness is approached as rapport management and the exercise of polite behav-
iour in oral interaction is viewed as eforts to establish and maintain harmonious re-
lations. Te term rapport management (Spencer-Oatey, 2000a: 3) departs from the
understanding that language in communication has the dual function of transmit-
ting 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 communi-
cation, 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. Te review revealed a number of stud-
ies that mainly investigate mitigation in aviation communication. Tey 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
Levinsons approach to politeness her study showed that captains and frst ofcers
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 miti-
gate 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 frst
ofcers were indirect, involving strategies like permission seeking questions, crew
obligation statements, and hints.
Howard (2003) concentrated on miscommunication in pilotcontroller in-
teractions and found that one-third of the interactions in his data included both
mitigating strategies qualifers, hedges, tag questions, hesitations, titles, hon-
orifcs, minimisers and conventional strategies such as greetings, sign ofs and
apologies. However, Howard found that polite behaviour had negative efects on
communication: as mitigation increased, clarity decreased contributing to mis-
understandings between pilots and controllers. Howard admits the valuable role
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Rapport management in air trafc control in Malaysian aviation discourse 81
of politeness in aviation communication despite its negative efects and notes the
necessity for further research as to how politeness should be managed in pilot
controller interactions for safe and efective communication.
Hinrich (2008) looked at the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features of ques-
tions in routine aviation messages; fndings 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
clarifcation and just to mitigate request when specifying particular information.
In sum, the literature suggests that although in theory the relational compo-
nent 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 communica-
tion. 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 trafc control is regulated by communi-
cative functions that fall into the following four categories:
1. triggering actions,
2. sharing information,
3. managing the pilotcontroller relationship,
4. managing the dialogue.
Tey explain that triggering actions are the core of pilotcontroller communica-
tions and this category is supported by actions that require sharing information
between the two parties. Te last two categories play a subordinate mediating role
with regard to the frst two. Although subordinate in nature, the language func-
tions in these two categories are essential because of their efect on the success and
efciency of the air trafc communication. Te 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 God-
met, 2002: 2) and so forth.
Te present study is rooted in the understanding that aviation communica-
tion is polite communication (Howard 2003: 115) and focuses on the manage-
ment of the controllerpilot relationship as an essential component of air trafc
communication. Although a number of studies have looked at mitigation in avia-
tion communication, to the best of my knowledge no study has investigated how
rapport is managed between controllers and pilots. An examination of (a) the lan-
guage functions in air trafc communication, and (b) their associated forms vis--
vis features of politeness, is considered useful for literacy in language use aimed at
improving communication. Te fndings would also have pedagogical signifcance
for training in aviation English.
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
82 Shamala Paramasivam
Rapport management in oral communication
As already mentioned, the present study employs Spencer-Oateys (2000b) inter-
pretation of politeness as rapport management. Although Brown and Levinsons
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 re-
quires an approach to politeness that addresses multiple linguistic domains in ad-
dition 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 honorifcs) 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 lef 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 func-
tion as rapport management strategies such as choice of speech acts, intonation,
tone, lexis, morphology, syntax, terms of address, honorifcs 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 chal-
lenge or impair harmonious relations).
Research design
Te 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.
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Rapport management in air trafc control in Malaysian aviation discourse 83
Data collection
Te present study utilises two sources of data:
1. Audio-recordings of air trafc interactions between Malaysian controllers tak-
ing on roles as pilots, controllers and other related agencies in the air trafc
environment in role-plays depicting non-routine situations;
2. Transcripts of real-life interactions between Malaysian controllers and inter-
national pilots.
Te 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 trafc situations in non-
routine settings were given to the candidates. A chart representing the aircrafs in-
volved and the runways in use was given to the candidates to study for about a min-
ute afer which the role-play began. Te role-play involved two or three roles (pilot,
controller, and related agencies such as supervisor, emergency unit, etc). Te roles
of pilot and related agencies were played by air trafc ofcers who are representa-
tives of a Malaysian aviation organisation that administered the Aviation English
test. Te air trafc ofcers were experts in using English as a lingua franca, active
air trafc controllers operating in Malaysia as well as qualifed and experienced
trainers at a Malaysian aviation academy. During the role-play, the ofcer 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. Tis was to simulate air
trafc environment as far as possible where pilots and controllers are invisible to
each other and depend solely on voice for communication. Te scenarios were de-
signed using the list of non-routine situations stipulated by the International Civil
Aviation Organisation (ICAO, 2004). Te duration of the role-plays were approxi-
mately 10 minutes each and during this time the candidate was allowed to make
notes. Te 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 Lan-
guage Profciency rating scale. Te recordings are thus considered to be language
use refective of expert users of Aviation English in the Malaysian context.
Role play is recognised as an efective technique for investigating communica-
tive 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
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
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 strat-
egy choice and politeness, the kinds of interlocutor responses that are elicited by
specifc strategic choices, and how these responses in turn determine the speakers
next move. Since the present study examines the kinds of linguistic devices used
to establish rapport in air trafc 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 tech-
nique, especially for the study of politeness behaviour. Te technique may result
in participants displaying behaviour that is not representative of real-life practices.
Tere 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. Te study employs data from real-life interactions in the radiote-
lephony environment as complementary to the role-play data.
Te second source of data for this study involves four transcripts of real-life
air trafc interactions involving non-routine situations between Malaysian con-
trollers and international pilots obtained from the Malaysian aviation organisa-
tion that conducted the Aviation English test. Tis data set is quite limited due
to confdentiality; the call signs of the aircrafs involved in these transcripts have
therefore been changed.
Data analysis
Te analysis involved several steps. Afer the speech data was transcribed, the lan-
guage functions involved in the interactions were coded using the list of com-
municative functions in air trafc control (ICAO, 2004). Subsequently, linguistic
devices that refect rapport management were coded using as a template: a list
of linguistic features for politeness in air trafc control culled from the available
literature (Linde, 1988; Fisher and Orasanu, 2000; Howard, 2003; Hinrich 2008).
Tese include conventionally polite expressions such as please and thank you,
terms of address, justifcations, modals, and conditional language.
Afer the data had been coded for language functions in air trafc control
and linguistic devices for politeness, I analysed each interaction in order to es-
tablish how rapport was managed between the participants of the interaction, us-
ing Spencer-Oateys (2000b) notion of rapport management as a guide. Interviews
were conducted with an experienced air trafc controller and a pilot both of whom
served as informants on the fndings from and interpretations of the interactions.
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Rapport management in air trafc control in Malaysian aviation discourse 85
Findings
Tis section focuses on the fndings and addresses the research questions. In the
role-play situations, the communicative functions used were mainly those re-
quired by information sharing between pilots and controllers. Tese actions were
necessary for the pilot and controller to work collaboratively towards a solution.
Teir actions showed that they worked cooperatively to build an accurate percep-
tion of the current state of the non-routine situation, in order to formulate a cor-
rect judgement on which a decision could be based. Actions were accomplished
successfully and efectively for which certain linguistic features of rapport man-
agement were responsible.
Indirectness and justifcations
Justifcation 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 Ex-
ample 1, the pilot of November Bravo Xray Wiski November (call sign of the air-
craf) 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. Te 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. Tis 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). Tere is no explicit request for a location. Te request is implied
in the pilots explanation of his problem. Te explanation acts as justifcation for
the request which incidentally is implied within the explanation. Tis is against
the norm in aviation discourse where speech acts such as requests are prescribed
to be explicit and clear. Te transcript shows how in practice there may be varia-
tions. Te elaborate explanation of the problem situation by the pilot in lines 3 and
5 could be an efort 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: Tis is this is er November Bravo Xray Wiski November on one two zero
decimal two do you read?
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
86 Shamala Paramasivam
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 fnd 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 confrm 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 afrm sir but we have
returned to the location where the yatch was and we could not fnd 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 aircraf 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 aircraf please) and sup-
ports it with a reason (I have no control over the trafc). 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.
Justifcations functions as a strategy to get his interlocutor to cooperate in manag-
ing the emergency situation in hand. In line 9 C2 complies with C1s 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: Afrm 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 (.) aircraf descending at 1500 its beyond our control because the
intruder has a pistol at the pilot. Aircraf will be holding over KLCC at 1500
7. C2: Copied our circuit active 10500
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Rapport management in air trafc control in Malaysian aviation discourse 87
8. C1: Please land your aircraf please (heightened voice) because I have no control
over the trafc
9. C2: OK we we will make all our aircraf cooperate make a fullstop here
Similar pragmalinguistic features were found in the data from real-life interac-
tions. In line 1 the pilot of MAX 957 requests to turn lef 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 lef. Te control-
ler again does not approve the request and gives an explanation for his action (due
trafc). In line 5 MAX 957 acknowledges the denial. In line 6 however MAX 957s
request to deviate lef in order to avoid the weather is approved afer 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 trafc interactions
this strategy seems to remove the responsibility of the act in question from the
speaker and place it on a situational factor. Tis 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 lef 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
lef heading sir
4. C: Negative negative due trafc maintain (background conversation) yah SIA
maintaining 5000
5. P1: Roger MAX 957
6. C: IAS 218 maintain 5000 due trafc
7. P2: Roger 5000 IAS 218
8. C: MAX 957 climb FL140 lef heading is approved
Terms of address
Te term of address sir is used as a rapport management strategy to gain the
cooperation of the other. Tis is evident in Example 1 line 3 and Example 3 line 3.
In Example 1 it extends respect by addressing the controllers status and appeals
for the controllers cooperation in teasing out the pilots inductively-structured
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
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 controllers 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 afect the request.
Example 4 (line 1) includes a further instance of a similar use of sir. Te ad-
dress term works in tandem with justifcations (we have little control over the
aircraf we are struggling with the aircraf) to mitigate the pilots request to vector
of trafc.
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 aircraf we are
struggling with the aircraf and er if there is trafc ahead of us please can
you vector of the trafc
2. C: Roger Angkasa 592 due to emergency aircraf turn lef on the heading 180
for avoidance
3. P2: Angkasa 592 turning lef heading 180
Conventionally polite expressions
Conventionally polite expressions such as please emerged in rapport manage-
ment. 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 efort is being put forth by the
speaker, and that the hearers expended efort will be appreciated. In Example 2
the expression is used with an explicit instruction (land your aircraf). 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 of trafc but also appeals to the controller to fulfl
the request.
Example 5 displays a similar situation. In line 5 the controller issues a directive
to the fre brigade (will you rush out please). Te directive however is mitigated
with please and is phrased as a question that also serves to mitigate imposition.
(Tis was probably the controllers response to the lack of reaction on the part of
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Rapport management in air trafc control in Malaysian aviation discourse 89
the fre brigade personnel to the urgency of the matter). In line 7 the controller
provids a description of the aircraf on fre (there is a bright fre on the starboard
side (.) his main wheels broken of and there is fre) that helps heighten the aware-
ness of the fre brigade personnel about the emergency of the situation. Te use
of OK emphasises the controllers notifcation of the aircraf being in full emer-
gency. Tese 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 efort to manage the unexpected situation.
Example 5. (Real-life interaction)
C: Controller at a Malaysian Control Tower
AFB: Airport Fire Brigade
1. C: Hello! FB Hello! FB is that the fre brigade? Fire brigade control tower here
2. AFB: Hello!
3. C: Tere is an aircraf that has crashed and there is fre on the aircraf
4. AFB: What fre is it?
5. C: Aircraf fre. Full emergency. Aircraf is on fre, will you rush out please
6. AFB: Full emergency or declared emergency?
7. C: Full emergency full emergency 68 on board I think there is a bright fre
on the starboard side (.) his main wheels broken of and there is fre. Full
emergency OK
8. AFB: OK were coming keep us informed
Modals and conditional language
Modals and conditional language are linguistic features that address dynamic
fight situations (Hinrich, 2008). Te modal could in line 8 in Example 6 is a typi-
cal example of this: it gives a probable location of the aircraf (your position could
be of Kuching airfeld). 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 airfeld if you wish to proceed to the airfeld). Te construc-
tion here addresses the dynamic situation and ever-changing nature of fight, and
engages the pilot in joint decision-making. When the controller notes a probable
location of the pilots aircraf in line 8 he prompts the pilot to look out for inconsis-
tencies in his position. Likewise, in his use of the conditional if (line 8) he alerts
the pilot about his line of action. Te controller gives the pilot the option to act.
Te linguistic form addresses the pilots competence, that it is his evaluation and
assessment of the problem situation and his decision for problem solution. Tis
language use promotes joint decision-making between them.
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
90 Shamala Paramasivam
Line 9 displays the pilots response to the controllers suggested action. Te
pilot takes up the option to act and decides not to take the controllers suggestion.
His decision is signalled and mitigated with the hesitation er followed by the ex-
pression not at the moment, which mitigates his decision against the controllers
suggestion, and the respectful address sir. Te structure protects the controllers
face as a result of the pilots decision not to follow the controllers suggestion. In
order to solve the problem situation, the pilot fnally makes a request for a magnet-
ic heading (can you give us a rough magnetic heading). His request is mitigated
by the modal verb can followed by a justifcation for the request (we can fy our
cofers are still working). Te mitigated request structure appeals for cooperation
from the controller to fulfl the request. When the controller displays lack of un-
derstanding 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. Te modal should de-
notes the controllers projected heading of the aircraf; the heading is subject to the
accuracy of the aircrafs location. Tis structure refects the constantly changing
nature of fight 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 cant 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: Te Boeing seven three seven ah is er on Airways er Golf four six correction
Golf fve eight zero aircraf is er heading towards the Kuching airfeld
making approach for runway two fve. Confrm 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 trafc some two to
three minutes ago sir it was a red and white stripped aircraf had a small
logo on its tail and er it was heading from our lef to the right and we are
approaching the coast now
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Rapport management in air trafc control in Malaysian aviation discourse 91
8. C: November Bravo er your position could be to the north east of Kuching
airfeld can you still site the Boeing and follow the Boeing to the airfeld if
you wish to proceed to the airfeld?
9. P1: er not at the moment sir we are at the coast can you give us a rough magnetic
heading we can fy our cofers are still working
10. C: Say again?
11. P1: Our cofers are still working sir and can you give us a magnetic heading so
that we can fy to the airfeld?
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 airfeld on the heading of two one
zero you should be ah fying you should be heading towards Kuching city
which is north of the airfeld
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 confguration and for the possibility to make the change over the bay (Id like to
do that out there over the bay if I may). Te modal would and the conditional if I
may engage the controller in joint decision-making. Te controller is prompted to
consider the pilots request for inconsistencies before he approves it. Te structure
addresses the controllers position in the air trafc system as having a wider view
of the airspace volume and knowledge of the air trafc situation.
Example 7. (Real-life interaction)
P: Pilot of Alaska 261
C: Controller at a Malaysian Control Tower
1. P: LA Alaska 261 uh were with you at 225 we have a jammed stabiliser and ah
were maintaining altitude with difculty 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 youre 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
confguration make sure I can control the jet and Id 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
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
92 Shamala Paramasivam
preceded with an explanation (I lost my phone connection to the tower) that
justifes it. Tese 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 youre coming ILS 24
with ah twenty miles now?
4. P: OK will do
5. C: Tank you
And AEF 1135 descend 5500
6. P: Descending 5500 AEF 1135
Discussion
Since the objective of air trafc control system is to promote safe and efcient
fight, its discourse is guided by concerns for accuracy and efciency (Morrow et
al., 1994). Te language of air trafc control is therefore transaction-oriented and
governed by fxed rules and phraseologies. Te 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 trafc communication, a fnding
supported also by the present article. Te discourse of air trafc control emerges as
a polite discourse; a range of linguistic devices were found in the interactions an-
alysed which were primarily oriented to rapport maintenance between controllers
and pilots. Te linguistic devices found are listed below.
Linguistic devices for rapport management in air trafc interaction
1. Justifcations
2. Inductive rhetorical strategy
3. Terms of address
4. Conventionally polite expressions
5. Modals
6. Conditional language use
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Rapport management in air trafc control in Malaysian aviation discourse 93
Tese devices work interdependently, ofen overlapping and occurring simultane-
ously. 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 justifcations and with sir as an address form (see e.g. Example 1). Justif-
cations are used concurrently with conventional expressions like please (cf. Ex-
ample 2), and modals are used along with the conditional if , the polite expression
please, the address term sir, and justifcations (cf. Example 4).
Te fndings of the study clearly show that the management of rapport be-
tween controllers and pilots and other relevant parties in the air trafc exchange is
a salient feature of air trafc control. Te 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 trafc 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 mind-
ful behaviour as shared mindfulness, which she defnes 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 deci-
sions 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 clarifcation or confrmation 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 inter-
action, the participants of the communication, frst and foremost, need to have the
attitudes that promote these behaviours. Tey need to be open and fair-minded
to incoming information, adaptable and fexible to changing facets of a situation,
and accommodative and adjustable to one another. Tese attitudes are noted as
key factors for successful interpersonal interaction and communication in in-
tercultural 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 (Paramasi-
vam, 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 diferences and converge to achieve common interests.
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
94 Shamala Paramasivam
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 qual-
ity of politeness as a tool for building relationships in communication and inter-
personal 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 trafc communication in order to manage
crisis situations.
Te fndings of the present study show that eforts at rapport maintenance
facilitate the performance of core communicative functions for dealing with un-
expected situations in air trafc control. Te linguistic devices identifed in this
study create and maintain harmony by constructing a conducive atmosphere for
communicating transactional matters in air trafc exchanges.
Implications
One important implication of the fndings of the present study for communica-
tion training in air trafc control is the need to raise awareness among airmen of
the relevance of polite discourse in the genre. Tey 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 trafc control may be executed
smoothly and efectively. Communication training could include teaching polite-
ness and its importance for building teamwork attitudes and behaviours in con-
trollers and pilots, as well as other aviation-related personnel.
In relation to this point, the present studys other implication is that efective
air trafc control requires more than mere linguistic competence in English: prag-
matic 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 avia-
tion, 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 trafc communication across cultures (Spencer-Oatey, 2000a).
Diferent cultures create and establish rapport diferently and have diferent as-
sessments of language use for establishing solidarity and harmony. Te efect of
cultural diversity on rapport management practices and outcomes in intercultural
air trafc communication is thus among the areas requiring further investigation.
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Rapport management in air trafc control in Malaysian aviation discourse 95
Note
1. Te test involved one candidate, i.e. a controller, and three testers, comprising two air trafc
ofcers 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 aircraf crashes. Chicago: Te Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. Manchester/Northampton: St. Jerome Publish-
ing.
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2006). Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male
speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(12), 21582187.
Fisher, U., and Orasanu, J. (2000). Error-challenging strategies: Teir role in preventing and
correcting errors. Retrieved 25 November 2008 from: http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~fscher/
HFES2000.pdf
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219236.
Kasper, G., and Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Sec-
ond Language Acquisition, 13, 215247.
Kasper, G., and Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. London: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Lakof, R. (1973). Te logic of politeness; or, minding your ps and qs. In: Corum, C., Smith-
Stark, T., and Weiser, A. (Eds.) Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Lin-
guistic Society (pp. 292305). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Linde, C. (1988). Te quantitative study of communicative success: Politeness and accidents in
aviation discourse. Language in Society, 17(3), 375399.
Hinrich, S. W. (2008). Te use of questions in international pilot and air trafc controller com-
munication. PhD dissertation, Oklahoma State University.
Howard, J. W. (2003). Tower am I cleared to land?: Pilot-ATC (mis)communication. PhD dis-
sertation. Bowling Green State University.
International Civil Aviation Organisation. (2001). Annex 11 Air trafc services (13th Edi-
tion). Montreal: International Civil Aviation Organisation.
International Civil Aviation Organisation. (2004). Manual on the implementation of ICAO lan-
guage profciency requirements (Doc 9835 AN/453). Montreal: International Civil Avia-
tion Organisation.
Krieger, J. L. (2005). Shared mindfulness in cockpit crisis situations: An exploratory analysis.
Journal of Business Communication, 42, 135167.
McMillan, D. (1998). Say again? Miscommunications in air trafc control. MEd disserta-
tion. Queensland University of Technology.
Mell, J. (1991). What is not standard in real radiotelephony. Paper presented at the 4th Interna-
tional Civil Aviation English Association Forum.
2011. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
96 Shamala Paramasivam
Mell, J., and Godmet, C. (2002). Communicative functions in language for aviation radiotele-
phony. Retrieved 25 November 2008 from: http://air.gtelp.co.kr/Board/air_pds/fle/check-
list2.pdf
Mohd, N. G. (2007). Air trafc control radiotelephony safety: Investigating the English second
language users perspective. PhD dissertation. Cranfeld University.
Morrow, D., Rodvold, M. and Lee, A. (1994). Nonroutine transactions in controller-pilot com-
munication. Discourse Processes, 17, 235258.
Nair-Venugopal, S. (2003). Approximations of social reality as interpretations of culture: Ex-
tending a framework of analysis in intercultural communication. Te Journal of Interna-
tional Communication, 9(2), 1328.
Nolan, M. S. (1994). Fundamentals of air trafc control. California: Wadsworth Publishing.
Paramasivam, S. (2007). Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree: Polite dis-
agreement in negotiation discourse. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research,
36(2), 91116.
Paramasivam, S. (2008). Power and politeness in negotiation discourse. In Jacobson, R. (Ed.)
Te pulse of a Malaysian university: Ethno- and sociolinguistic issues and the TESOL dimen-
sion (pp. 3768). 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. 275287). 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. 18). 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 cul-
tures. London and New York: Continuum.
Tiewtrakul, T. (2007). Analysis of approach controller-pilot communications. MSc dissertation.
Cranfeld 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.
Authors address
Shamala Paramasivam
Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication
Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 UPM Serdang, Malaysia
shamala@putra.upm.edu.my