Cette recherche propose d’examiner les marqueurs de l’anglais à la lumière du concept de polyphonie, abondamment utilisé en linguistique du français. Cette étude du cas de l’interro-négative en anglais questionne le caractère opératoire de ce concept : renseigne-t-il aussi le fonctionnement de la langue anglaise ?Pour répondre à cette question, nous proposons tout d’abord un retour sur les bases théoriques qui ont inspiré notre travail, pour les mettre ensuite à l’épreuve de nos occurrences d’interro-négatives extraites de notre corpus de nouvelles de Raymond Carver. Nous analysons ainsi, dans un premier temps, les interro-négatives sans pronom interrogatif, introduites par isn’t, don’t et didn’t. Dans un deuxième temps, nous portons notre attention sur la question ouverte introduite par le pronom interrogatif why. Enfin, les question-tags sont abordées : elles permettent d’asseoir notre thèse quant à la place importante qu’occupe l’interlocuteur dans la construction de message. A cet égard, nous réhabilitons son rôle dans le processus de construction de message en lui attribuant celui de co-constructeur / This research examines English linguistic markers using the concept of ‘polyphony’, i.e. intersubjectivity, a concept that is key to many studies in French linguistics. More precisely, we examine how negative interrogative constructions in English work, while also exploring the possibility that they may shed light on how the English linguistic system functions as a whole.To do so, we begin by reviewing the theoretical work that inspired our study. This earlier work is then applied to our corpus of negative interrogatives, which were sourced from a collection of short stories by Raymond Carver. Our analysis begins by looking at negative interrogatives that do not contain interrogative pronouns – more precisely, those introduced by isn’t, don’t and didn’t. Then, we focus our attention on wh-questions introduced by the interrogative pronoun why. Finally, we look at tag questions: this allows us to anchor our work in a place that accords primary importance to the interlocutor in the construction of linguistic messages. As far as this is concerned, we redefine the interlocutor’s role in this process by considering them a co-constructor of the linguistic message

In this dissertation, I study the way couples improvise relationships together. I define improvisation as a kind of performance that leads to an interpretive practice where people develop the meanings of their relationships as they perform. Participating in a performance ethnography, my romantic partner, myself, and three other couples reflect on the way we perform together on stage. Adapting the popular improv performance format “Armando” and utilizing post-performance focus groups, I observe how the couples strive to make meaning together and negotiate a joint-perspective about how they played. Ultimately, I argue that attending to the way a couple improvises their relationship off stage can provide key insights into the communication patterns that allow them to share vulnerable experiences and grow close. In the end, I discuss ways that improv techniques and philosophies have informed and guided my own romantic relationship.

The idea of an inherent structure of meaning in human communication is identified as the message construct. Traces of the construct in textbook models of the basic communication process and in popular magazine images of communication are examined. The argument is raised that objectifying the message has resulted in a paradigm which focuses disproportionately on explicit, representational, and instrumental aspects of communication. An alternative conception is proposed which would take into account implicit, constitutive, and generative aspects.

In this dissertation, I study the way couples improvise relationships together. I define improvisation as a kind of performance that leads to an interpretive practice where people develop the meanings of their relationships as they perform. Participating in a performance ethnography, my romantic partner, myself, and three other couples reflect on the way we perform together on stage. Adapting the popular improv performance format “Armando” and utilizing post-performance focus groups, I observe how the couples strive to make meaning together and negotiate a joint-perspective about how they played. Ultimately, I argue that attending to the way a couple improvises their relationship off stage can provide key insights into the communication patterns that allow them to share vulnerable experiences and grow close. In the end, I discuss ways that improv techniques and philosophies have informed and guided my own romantic relationship.

M.Ed. / It is clear to me that the need for the teacher and the school to provide educational help and support is greater than ever before. With reference to democratic values in a multicultural society Le Roux (1997:1) is of the opinion that teachers have a lot of responsibility for both “what” and “how” learners learn. To gain better understanding in the “functioning” of the modern educational system it is of the utmost importance to investigate “how” educational goals are attained in the modern classroom. In accordance with this reasoning not only the content of the teaching and learning experience is important but also the process of educational communication (Du Plessis, 1974:5). Especially where education is viewed as help and support to the youth, the helping relationship between teachers and the learners in their care occupies a central position (Okun, 2002:21). In accordance with this view teacher and learners in this study will be seen as senders and receivers of educational verbal and non verbal messages (Goleman, 1996:116; Goleman, 2006:14; Johnson, 2006:126). If the helping relationship is of great importance to teaching and learning and if this relationship is built and maintained via teacher-learner communication, how does the experience of aggression while communicating with their teachers affect learners? What is learners’ experience of aggression while communicating with their teachers? What can be done about the experience of aggression during teacher-learner communication? This research was done in two phases. In PHASE 1 the goal was to explore and describe grade eleven learners’ experience of aggression while communicating with their teachers. In PHASE 2 the goal was the description of guidelines for communication between secondary school learners and their teachers with special reference to the handling of aggression in the communication and relationship. It is a qualitative investigation to explore and to describe learners’ experience of aggression while communicating with their teachers. The research rests on Phenomenological principles and methods (Giorgi, 2002). I followed a functional approach and the research is carried out with the view of improving my own educational practice as well as educational practice in general. The method of data collection followed is a qualitative interpretive constructivist approach to the generation of new knowledge and the specific method employed is phenomenological interviews. The research was conducted at an ex-Model C school. The sample was purposive and grade 11 learners were given an opportunity to participate in the research on a voluntary basis. Grade eleven learners were given opportunity because, in my view, in general, they have both enough experience with teachers and the vocabulary to talk about a complex phenomenon such as the experience of aggression. The methods and procedures employed made extensive use of triangulation with a view to enhancing trustworthiness. Twelve individual phenomenological interviews were conducted as well as a focus group interview. There was a total of nineteen voluntary participants of which eighteen are Afrikaans first language speakers and one is an English first language speaker. Eight boys and eleven girls participated. All of the participants are seventeen years of age. All the participants, except one boy, also wrote a naïve sketch about their experiences before the phenomenological interview or focusgroup interview was conducted. During all the interviews, as well as directly afterwards, field notes were made, by the researcher. The central question of this investigation is: “What is grade eleven learners’ experience of aggression wile communicating with their teachers?” and this question was operationalised in the individual phenomenological interviews, focus group interview, and the naïve sketches as: “How is it for you when your teachers are aggressive when they talk to you?”

No description available.

No description available.

This study will further the base of research concerned with the phenomenon of self-esteem and its relationship to self-disclosure. The view one has of self significantly affects attitudes, behaviors, evaluations, and cognitive processes. By correlating the self-esteem measure with a pen and paper measure of self-disclosure, and a behavioral measure of self-disclosure, we will have a better understanding of the relationship self-esteem has in regulating or influencing what we disclose of ourselves to others. Also, we can determine if one's reported disclosures are a measurement of one's actual disclosures. This study examined whether self-esteem influences an individual's readiness to self-disclose. It would make intuitive sense that we should seek to understand conditions that affect the degree to which individuals are more or less likely to disclose information about themselves. In this way, we will be better equipped to promote and maintain relationships. Research has suggested that disclosure promotes relational growth. If we better understand the conditions that affect levels of disclosure, we can establish deeper, more committed relations with others, as well as communicate more effectively. Self-esteem refers to an individual's personal judgement of his or her worth. This construct was operationalized by using the Index of Self-Esteem, ISE. Self-disclosure is any message about the self that a person communicates to another. It implies that in some situations an individual chooses how much or how little to divulge. This construct was operationalized by using Viii the Disclosiveness/Disclosure Scale-RSDS, and also by having subjects rate their actual disclosures: BSDl - openness; BSD2 - comfort; and BSD3 - level (See Appendices A,B,& C).

Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY in the subjecr of Communication Science at the University of Zululand, 2005. / In this dissertation, I present the results of an analysis of the nature of deceptive communication. I examine when it is legitimate to deceive others and when it is not. The first part of the study renews theories and literature relevant to understanding and defining deceptive communication, human perceptions values and beliefs. I examine possible reasons why animals engage in deceptive communication. I focus on interpersonal deception; self-deception; persuasion and propaganda; nonverbal communication and people's inability to make accurate judgements of deception and ethical perspectives on deception. Subsequent chapters describe the construction of a survey instrument employed to measure and evaluate the extent of deceptive communication among university students. Penultimate chapters blend the insights gained from this literature review to interpret the results, obtained through the quantitative research methodology, to describe a set of conclusions and recommendations in the context of deceptive communication - when it is legitimate to deceive others and when it is not.

This dissertation reports on the evolution of an observation instrument designed to examine a series of dyadic interactions between service providers and elderly clients. The encounters took place in the physical context of the client's home and under the auspices of two different kinds of urban service agencies. Staff members and elderly clients of In-home Nursing and Interaction agencies participated in the study. The coding system (Service Provider/Client Dyadic Interaction Coding System or SP/CDICS), is comprised of 28 carefully defined and described behavioral categories. The categories were developed through literature reviews and a series of preliminary observations conducted in agencies similar to but not included among the sampled agencies. A majority of the defined behavioral categories require moderate levels of observer judgment. A Field Manual was developed to train the five observers who collected the data. This was supplemented with a videotape constructed to further assist observers in the learning and subsequent use of the code, particularly with non-verbal and paralinquistic aspects of the behaviors. Fifty-one service providers and 147 clients comprised the sample of observed dyads. The coded observational data were examined in the expectation that there would be recurrent patterns of behavior. Factor analysis resulted in the delineation of ten client and five service provider behavioral patterns that appear to be interpersonally meaningful. The derived service provider and client behavioral factors were correlated with other measurements available on the same population. These included several service provider personality and attitude measures as well as observer and client evaluations of the encounter. The comparisons, in general, tended to confirm the interpretations given to the described factors, further supporting an assumption that the SP/CDICS is a useful and valid instrument.