Ironic regulations in professional communication

Zakharova M.V.

Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor

State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education "Moscow City Pedagogical University",
e-mail: mary-zaharova@yandex.ru

 

The essence of ironic strategic regulation

The concept of a regulator was introduced into linguistics by A.A. Romanov in 1988. In his understanding, a regulator is "an internal 'software base' ('software of the mind') of the speaking subject, reflecting the results of the speech behavior of the participants in dialogical interaction and the way of representing the influence (impact) of the partners on each other" [7]. Dividing regulators into three types: categorical, strategic and associative, he understands the strategic regulator as an internal program of the speech subject, determining the methods of influencing the addressees of communication in order to achieve the set goal: "what to do in a given situation in order to achieve the desired result" [Ibid.].

Applying the concept of a strategic regulator to the analysis of ironic strategy in professional communication is, in our view, highly appropriate and effective, as it allows us to describe irony not in terms of its formal manifestations, but in terms of the verbal program of the subject of communicative influence. This is due both to the very nature of irony and to the specific characteristics of professional communication in general. While professional communication is most often understood as a sphere of business communication, in which unambiguous interpretation of the message and transparency of the communicative message are considered defining characteristics, irony, in contrast, presupposes a deliberate incoherence between the formal content of the statement and the actual communicative intent of its author. As researchers note, in utilitarian, playful discourse, in Internet communication, newspaper rhetoric, irony is most often a way for the subject of speech to distinguish himself from a group, to distance himself from less educated interlocutors, to covertly express aggression or disagreement, and also to search for like-minded people - a kind of "friend or foe" signal [S.N. Balashov, S.V. Doronina, O.P. Ermakova, A.G. Kozintsev, R. Martin, S.I. Pokhodnya, K.M. Shilikhin, O.M. Farkhitdinova, V. Yankelevich, S. Attardo, K. Barbe, C. Brooks, C. Colebrook, R. Giora, S. Glucksberg, C. Hempelmann, L. Hutcheon, H. Kotthoff, DC Muecke, A. Partington, V. Raskin, D. Sperber, D. Wilson, etc.]. In any case, irony is an individual speech activity that quite consciously violates Grice's maxims [2, pp. 222-225], since the principle of cooperation is irrelevant for the subject of irony: the interlocutor is never a co-creator of the communicative act for him, but either the object of irony (i.e., the one being laughed at) or the recipient of the ironic impact (i.e., the one who must recognize and correctly interpret the ironic intention of the subject of irony in order to be accepted as a worthy interlocutor). The recognition and interpretation of an ironic utterance can never be achieved unambiguously. The possibility of a direct interpretation of the meaning of the utterance always remains, since irony, by definition, is a hidden mockery of a person or situation, and verbal confirmation of the author's ironic intention, in our opinion, cannot be considered anything other than a communicative failure.

The essence of professional communication, on the contrary, lies in seeking agreement on how to solve common problems and developing a unified communication framework or program to simplify and optimize mutual understanding during joint professional activities. Communication, in this case, is merely an activity aimed at organizing joint activities and has no direct relationship to the communication itself. Therefore, the principle of cooperation must be strictly observed here, otherwise, not only the act of communication, but the professional activity itself, is at risk of failure.

Thus, irony as a phenomenon essentially exists at the opposite communicative pole from professional communication in the traditional sense of the term. However, under certain circumstances, the situation changes.

 

Ironic regulator in team management

In the sphere of professional communication, it is possible to consolidate non-standard forms of communicative interaction at the strategic regulatory level. Despite the apparent contradiction, in modern society, especially in the management of groups with a high level of anarchy and individual significance, such as school and student groups, creative teams, and work groups (artists, designers, programmers, etc.), there is a standard demand for unconventional communication. Let us explain this idea. Observing such groups, using school and student groups as examples, allows us to assert that, as a rule, the overall intellectual level of such groups is quite high, at least in terms of intellectual demand, while the environment in which the main activity of such groups takes place (in our case, training) is strictly regulated and limited by the framework of norms and requirements. In this regard, the assessment of the subject of management (teacher, manager, lecturer, etc.) in a group of this type is carried out primarily according to his ability, while remaining within the framework of solving the key task, to overcome the inertia and standardization of the interaction environment, demonstrating unconventional thinking.

Irony as a strategic regulator in this type of group allows for several objectives to be achieved simultaneously: first, the use of unconventional verbal influence, which requires a high level of communicative competence, enhances the status of the subject of management and, consequently, the level of trust in them and, consequently, the degree of controllability of the group as a whole. This proves particularly effective when ironic regulation is used in place of expected aggressive or formal strategies (appeals to status, references to norms of behavior, the organization's charter, threats of repressive action, etc.).

Secondly, the ironic regulator allows for the simultaneous implementation of two opposing influences: on the one hand, irony softens any negative judgment, i.e., it allows for a more gentle correction of the recipient's behavior than a direct, aggressive instruction. By changing their behavior and/or thoughts, the recipient does not obey a formal external command, but draws their own conclusions from the ironic communication, which reduces criticality and resistance and increases the effectiveness and long-term impact. On the other hand, irony allows for an implicit opposition between the target of influence and the collective and, consequently, the use of social mechanisms for correcting individual behavior, shifting the recipient's focus (and thus their aggression and resistance) from the demands of the subject of control to the demands of their own social group. Moreover, it is important to note that, unlike the standard appeal to a social group, when one or several of its members are clearly and demonstratively opposed to the rest and the group must make a choice between submission to the subject of control and loyalty to the members of the group, when implementing an ironic strategy, the essence of the ironic regulator prevents the emergence of a conflict situation: the subject of control does not demand anything from the group, but a correctly deciphered ironic message demonstrates the inappropriateness, irrelevance and / or inadequacy of the behavior of the object of irony, and if the group agrees with the presented assessment, then the influence of the group on the object will be carried out not under external pressure, but according to the internal conviction and personal self-motivation of the group members.

 

Ironic regulation as a means of developing the communicative competence of an individual

In the pedagogical sphere itself, the use of ironic regulation also serves an additional function (indirectly, obviously, relevant for creative and artistic professions as well): along with shaping socially acceptable behavior in society and preparing group members for independent activity in their personal and professional spheres, the task of multifaceted development of recipients of pedagogical influence also plays an extremely important role in the teacher's work. Transforming ironic communication into an ironic regulation in the minds of young native speakers promotes the development of their communicative competence, linguistic thinking, and a conscious attitude toward the potential of words, which naturally enhances their intellectual level and their ability to engage in high-quality, independent activity in all areas of life.

With proper organization of pedagogical communication, irony becomes not only a way for the teacher to manage a group but also a means of regulating interpersonal relationships. Of course, for most schoolchildren, ironic regulation is excessively complex, both in its conception and construction, and in its effective implementation. Therefore, in this age group, breakdowns in ironic communication are often observed, especially when the student chooses the teacher/group leader as the object of ironic influence. And in the initial stages of developing this area of communicative competence, this scenario most often occurs, since for most students, who have not previously encountered ironic regulations, the teacher serves as a model of communicative behavior and, consequently, as the recipient of linguistic and creative experiments.

This is due to the specific nature of pedagogical communication, in which, despite the fact that the teacher formally works with a group of students, for the recipient of pedagogical influence, direct "teacher-student" communication occurs, with the exception of those moments when the recipient's status changes to that of an observer of the same direct "teacher-student" communication (the teacher asks, calls to the board, corrects the student's behavior, the student questions the teacher, the student deliberately violates the norms of communicative behavior (is rude to the teacher, provokes)) and a few cases of spontaneous or programmed by the teacher emergence of interpersonal "student-student" communication, for example: a dispute about the hero of a literary work. With the exception of the last example, which arises quite rarely in pedagogical activity, the recipient of pedagogical influence exists within the framework of "teacher-student" communication (either as an active participant or as an observer) and, accordingly, in this context, tests out new skills of verbal behavior, including the ironic regulator. For the correct acquisition of this model of speech behavior, as well as for the acquisition of new actions in general, it is necessary for the action regulator to avoid aggressive reactions to errors. This, we note, is the key difficulty with the reverse (from student to teacher) use of irony in pedagogical communication: inappropriate use of irony violates communicative, behavioral, and, very often, ethical norms, while correct and appropriate use evokes a sense of status threat. Therefore, instead of properly correcting the use of irony when errors are made and raising the level of communication when irony is successfully used, teachers often reduce the level of communication to covert or overt aggression, which hinders the development of students' communicative competence.

 

Ironic regulation in the hierarchical space of business communication

This problem, in a slightly different guise, is characteristic of all spheres of professional communication. Since professional communication is always, to one degree or another, characterized by a hierarchy, three types of verbal interaction are distinguished in any sphere: top-down ("teacher to student," "boss/commander to subordinates"), bottom-up (the reverse type), and equal (between equals at the hierarchical level, for example: between students, between teachers, between subordinates of the same level, between bosses of the same level). Moreover, equality at the hierarchical level is usually as recognized as inequality, i.e., within the framework of professional communication, an assessment of the interlocutor's hierarchical status is always present. This is due not so much to the status of the interlocutors themselves, but to differences in speech etiquette (speech rituals) between these types of communication (usually the first two, which imply unequal status communication). Most professions have norms regulating both the first and second types of unequal-status communication: prescribed methods for establishing and maintaining contact, expressing agreement and disagreement, expressing one's desires, preferences, demands, etc., and also for exiting the communication differ. While the higher-status person naturally enjoys more privileges, the lower-status person has more responsibilities and restrictions, both are required to adhere to the speech etiquette imposed by the profession in any type of communication. Violating this etiquette is effectively equated with exceeding one's social role, and therefore undermining the recipient's status and violating the overall hierarchical system. The third type, however, is usually unregulated, as it formally falls outside the realm of business communication and is governed only by the general ethical norms of society at large. A particular difficulty is that the status of the participants in communication is actually beyond the scope of general ethics, since they are neither strangers nor close people, therefore, within each organization, its own communication models of the third type are formed, determined to a large extent by the worldview of the individuals included in the group.

In this regard, the use of ironic regulation in professional communication of the first and third types is always normative and usually productive, whereas the emergence of ironic intention in the implementation of the second type is always associated with a significant risk of communicative failure or the emergence of communicative, and sometimes actual, conflict. The same mechanisms that prove effective in the use of ironic regulation in communication among equals or top-down, in bottom-up communicative interaction, conversely, stimulate the recipient's aggression due to the perceived or actual undermining of their communicative status. At the same time, the admission and acceptance of ironic regulation in the speech of subordinates while demonstrating the preservation of intellectual and professional superiority contributes to the formation and strengthening of a sense of collective unity and the enhancement of the intra-collective status of the boss, teacher, or commander.

 

Professional communication using ironic regulation in a high-risk environment

In our opinion, the functions of the ironic strategic regulator should be particularly noted in professional fields associated with high risk and the experience of multiple negative emotions (medicine, the military, rescuers, pilots, etc.). Despite the maximum level of normativity in professional communication, associated both with the inadmissibility of communicative failures and the rigidity of the hierarchical system, which makes all forms of indirect communication unacceptable, irony as a strategic regulator in informal professional communication (oral communication within a professional group) plays a very significant role. Due to the specific nature of professional activity, there is a very high degree of taboo in both vocabulary and the topic of communication. These may include professional superstitions associated with the most common risks (for example, a ban on certain generally accepted direct and indirect verbal implementations of the concept of "death" in the speech of military personnel - death, died, perished, corpse, for the last time, and others), as well as protective psychological measures aimed at maintaining emotional stability in the process of professional activity (for example, an internal ban on expressing sadness, bitterness, grief for fallen comrades, deceased patients, etc.). However, verbal taboos do not contribute to the reduction of overall emotional stress when faced with a danger to one's own life, human grief, suffering, death, etc. Tabooing the manifestation of emotional reactions, on the one hand, prevents the escalation of unproductive emotions and the emergence of emotional resonance with colleagues involved in the situation, on the other hand, the suppression of strong negative emotions leads to increased stress and internal discomfort, which is dangerous for a person's mental and physical health [8, pp. 36-40].

Irony, targeting a situation or the behavior of one group member or the group as a whole, becomes a strategic regulator that facilitates the release of emotional tension and the release of pent-up emotional charge. Anti-stress (or post-stress) ironic regulation does not seek to isolate the object of irony from the group and utilize group behavioral regulation. The emergence of such an effect is potentially permissible, but is only an indirect manifestation of the regulatory function. Overall, the key objective is to demonstrate the possibility of a different interpretation of current events, inaccessible to the immediate participants due to excessive personal involvement. The ironic assessment of an event or behavior offered by the speaker is effectively aimed at distancing oneself from the present moment (the moment of speech) and transforming the stress stimulus into an object of reflection and analysis.

Internal communication in these areas is closed to external observation; however, the ironic regulator is often accessible to an outside observer, since the key content of communication, as follows from the definition of irony [11, p. 349], is not equal to the content of the utterance and, therefore, is inaccessible to an observer outside the group. External manifestations of the ironic regulator can be seen in the so-called "black humor" of doctors and military buffoonery. In both cases, the actual object of ridicule is not funny as such, and the subject of the utterance maintains a deliberate seriousness, while its goal is obviously to stimulate positive emotions within the professional group. For an outside observer, what is happening is usually not perceived as funny; on the contrary, it evokes a feeling of cognitive dissonance as a mockery of someone else's or one's own grief, fear, and suffering.

 

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to note that the essence of irony as a strategic regulator is most clearly manifested in these areas. After all, a regulator is essentially a stable, productive template for organizing communicative interaction. The essence of templates is that their use requires less competence than their creation or working without them. Irony is essential in professional communication in professions with high levels of professional risk and stress, but the level of communicative competence of specialists in these areas is far from always sufficient for full-fledged ironic communication. The assimilation of a strategic regulator occurs during professional development through the assimilation of a stable model of speech behavior from more experienced colleagues. Thus, an ironic regulator becomes accessible and understandable even with insufficient communicative competence, although the production of high-quality irony, naturally, continues to require a high level of development.

In summary, the following conclusion can be drawn: the use of ironic regulation in team management helps maintain the high status of the subject of management and correct the behavior and activities of group members in a softer, non-authoritarian manner, primarily appealing not to norms and status, but to the recipient's personal value system. At the same time, within the team, irony helps reduce conflict and enhance the intellectuality of communication. In high-risk areas, ironic regulation helps relieve emotional tension and replace negative emotions with positive ones. In general, the competent use of the ironic strategic regulator in professional communication of all types contributes to the formation of a comfortable, intellectually rich atmosphere within a professional team and its cohesion based on a common system of values and ideas about the world, and also, which obviously plays one of the main roles, on the basis of trust in each other and respect for intellectual, personal and professional qualities, the degree of development of which determines the possibility of competent, appropriate and productive use of irony in professional communication.