5 The manipulation of grammar?

One aspect of lexicogrammar that is not listed in the table but is associated with the construal of interpersonal meanings is the distribution of speech functions within an interaction. Here we do not have an entire interaction to analyse, so it is harder to comment on this aspect of the language use. What we can say is that the mediator seems to employ a range of techniques that deploy different status relationships at different points in the mediation, in ways that are not equally available to everyone in the room. For example, at times Katherine describes consciously using questioning to invite clients to say what they are thinking or feeling. Although she tends to use ‘I statements’ herself, rather than ‘you statements’, in the same way that clients are encouraged to do, sometimes the mediator is able to shift to the ‘you statement’, for example ‘you think they’re being unreasonable’. Participants in the interaction are on ‘first name terms’ all round – which might indicate equal status. However, when the need arises, first names are deployed in a more asymmetrical way, for example probably only the mediator uses the wording ‘First name + imperative clause’ as in ‘James, away you go’. Equally, although Katherine aims to use ‘open and tentative’ language, at times she also uses bare assertions, ‘Janet, it’s your turn to be quiet’ (a statement that almost functions as a command). It’s therefore possible to see how the professional mediator is shaping the context of the mediation from moment to moment through the skilled manipulation of lexicogrammatical choice.

You may have noticed language use in commercial contexts in which there is a deliberate manipulation of language, for example in mass media advertising, or in the context of sales talk, in order to create a sense of individual, personal connection with the target audience or reader. One term used to describe this technique is synthetic personalisation (Fairclough, 1989). An issue raised by the informal language use in the discussion of mediation so far is the question of whether there is an element of synthetic personalisation. To what extent do you think the familiarity and interactivity of mediation language is either genuine or artificially manufactured in order to achieve a particular purpose?