Page 128 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

106 Nathalie van Meurs and Helen Spencer-Oatey

sensitivities, and perceived sociality rights and obligations that they each hold.
Spencer-Oatey (2000: 29–30) also proposes that people may have different
orientations towards positive rapport:
1. Rapport-enhancement orientation: a desire to strengthen or enhance har-
monious relations between interlocutors;
2. Rapport-maintenance orientation: a desire to maintain or protect harmoni-
ous relations between the interlocutors;
3. Rapport-neglect orientation: a lack of concern or interest in the quality of re-
lations between the interlocutors (perhaps because of a focus on self);
4. Rapport-challenge orientation: a desire to challenge or impair harmonious
relations between the interlocutors
She points out that people’s motives for holding any of these orientations
could be various.

3.5. A synthesized summary
Building on the theorizing of Thomas (1976), Brown and Levinson (1987),
Spencer-Oatey (2000), along with Friedman, Chi and Liu’s (2006) and van
Meurs’ (2003) findings, it seems that the motivations underlying these conflict-
handling tactics can be multiple, and can include the following (interrelated)
concerns:

– Cost–benefit considerations (the impact of the handling of the conflict on the
instrumental concerns of self and/or other)
– Rapport considerations (the impact of the handling of the conflict on the
smoothness/harmony between the parties)
– Relational considerations (the impact of the handling of the conflict on the
degree of distance–closeness and equality–inequality between the parties)
– Effectiveness considerations (the impact of the handling of the conflict on
the degree of concern for clarity, control, and inconvenience between par-
ties)
Thomas’ five conflict-handling orientations or styles cannot be mapped in a
straightforward manner onto these underlying concerns, and thus cannot be ex-
plained simply in terms of concern for self versus concern for other, as Tho-
mas’s (1976) and Rahim’s (1983, 1992) frameworks suggest. Similarly, styles
and tactics do not have a one-to-one relationship. Let us take avoidance as an
example. If I avoid handling a conflict, it could be that I want to withdraw from
the problem (as indicated by Thomas’ grid), but there could also be several
other possibilities. It could be that I want to maintain or build rapport with the
other person; it could be that I want to show respect for the superordinate status
of the other person; or it could be that my long-term goal is to dominate my op-