Arndt & Janney - InterGrammar

The Structure of Concern Project compares many theoretical models from many disciplines to the Adizes PAEI model, arguing that they must all be reflecting the same underlying phenomenon. One concern structure model is described below.


InterGrammar is an approach to the study of speech that attempts to explain how people interpret the combined stream of verbal, prosodic and kinesic signals that they receive. All three streams are analysed as parts of a single unified act. These parts are thus studied in relation to each other, rather than in isolation (Arndt & Janney, 1987).

The InterGrammar project focuses on emotive communication, specifically the fleeting emotional and attitudinal indications we give in conversation. The interplay of verbal, prosodic and kinesic elements produce these indications, combining direct speech and indirect allusion, at different levels of formality, with varying emphasis, intonation, facial expressions and shifting eye contact. We send and perceive these composite signals effortlessly, so their production and interpretation seem fundamental to the way that human communication works. The InterGrammar project seeks to characterize how all of these elements work together in casual conversations in American English.

Several InterGrammar models exhibit concern structure patterns. One is based on an earlier model by Rands and Levinger (Rands & Levinger, 1979), representing the determinants of formal or informal style in speech. On this view, the formal-informal dimension of speech varies according to the affective and behavioural interdependence of the speakers. With low affective and behavioural interdependence, formality is high. This is the A-style of official or objective interaction. Where affective and behavioural interdependence are both high, in the I-range of interpersonal relationships, speech is most informal. In the P-style low-affective but high-behavioural interdependence mode, such as among coworkers in a large company, there is moderate formality. In the E-style low-behavioural by high-affective interdependence mode, formality is also moderate. High affective/low behavioral interdependence might be seen at a political or religious meeting, where we are passionate about shared values, yet lead largely separate lives.

The structure of concern arises in another area of the InterGrammar that models interpersonal attitudes. The interpretation of rising and falling intonation seems to depend crucially on the relationship between the speech partners. Interpretations of rising and falling intonation seem to be variously attributed to the personal commitments of the speaker (i.e. the speaker’s attitude towards the subject being spoken about) and the interpersonal commitments of the speaker (the speaker’s attitude towards the listener). Changes in intonation will be heard differently as the listener determines how the speaker feels, positive or negative, about personal and interpersonal attitudes in an interaction.

Interestingly, this rhetorical schema gives rise to concern structure patterns, as follows:

Unexpected falling pitch in a statement (p. 277)
P – Interpersonal, Negative: Self-assertive, dominating, aggressive…
A – Personal (Topical), Negative: Insistent, impatient, dogmatic…
E – Personal (Topical), Positive: Assertive, forceful, emphatic…
I – Interpersonal, Positive: Self-confident, authoritative, unthreatened…

Essentially, P is the confrontational and I the cooperative interpersonal style. A and E are two kinds of topical imposition, A as imperative and E as exhortative. Unexpected rising intonation in US English declarative and interrogatives is interpreted as follows:

Unexpected rise in simple statements and wh-questions (p. 278)
P – Interpersonal, Negative: Disbelieving, disapproving, critical…
A – Personal (Topical), Negative: Perplexed, concerned, shocked…
E – Personal (Topical), Positive: Curious, interested, pleasantly surprised…
I – Interpersonal, Positive: Seeking confirmation, repetition, clarification…

Two further patterns follow, both quite similar to each other:

Unexpected rise in commands and directives (p. 280)
P – Interpersonal, Negative: Insecure, cautious, threatened…
A – Personal (Topical), Negative: Uncertain, unsure, hesitant…
E – Personal (Topical), Positive: Temporizing, expectant, waiting…
I – Interpersonal, Positive: Polite, deferential, considerate…

The fall-rise (waver in pitch p. 282)
P – Interpersonal, Negative: Insecure, cautious, threatened…
A – Personal (Topical), Negative: Hesitant, uncertain, ambivalent…
E – Personal (Topical), Positive: Tentative, temporizing, waiting…
I – Interpersonal, Positive: Nonassertive, deferential, tactful…

0-InterGrammar.gif

On a complementary team, a strong P is most likely to express open negativity towards others, given the impatience, impulsiveness and instrumental/competitive focus of that style. A strong P might also be more likely to interpret vocal prosody under the assumption that others also feel interpersonal negativity during conflict.

A strong A is most committed to certainty and unambiguous knowledge, hence most likely to hold on to doubt regarding his or her beliefs. Once certainty is ascertained, it is promoted with great insistence. E is least likely to doubt his or her own thoughts, ideas and opinions, and also tends to enjoy talking, displaying knowledge and exploring topics of all kinds. I is most likely to compromise, to make efforts to clarify his or her understanding of others, and to support and encourage his or her speech partner. All of this conforms to the concern structure pattern, and it offers a useful point for examining communication styles and cross-style misunderstandings in more detail.

Bibliography
1. Arndt, H., & Janney, R. W. (1987). InterGrammar: Toward an Integrative Model of Verbal, Prosodic and Kinesic Choices in Speech (Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 2). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
2. Rands, M., & Levinger, G. (1979). “Implicit theories of relationship: An intergenerational study.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 645-661.
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License