Discourse analysis of aviation radiotelephony: communicative functions

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Article

Discourse analysis of aviation radiotelephony: communicative functions

Olena Moskalenko

The article deals with the problem of defining communicative functions of Aviation radiotelephony. Problems with Radio communication have been a significant cause or a contributory factor in many aircraft accidents and serious incidents. The communicative function of an utterance corresponds to the speaker's intention in producing a given message. The author gives the analysis of the language forms and functions. The classification of language functions has been presented, according to which there has been outlined seven different functions of language: instrumental, regulatory, representational, interactional, personal, heuristic, imaginative. The functions of Aviation radiotelephony discourse have been grouped into four categories corresponding to their role in carrying out ATC and piloting tasks. These categories are: triggering actions; sharing information; managing the pilot-controller relationship; managing the dialogue.

Keywords: communication, communicative function, aviation radiotelephony, functional approach, pilot-controller dialogue.

Formulation of a research problem and its significance. The modern flight aviation system operates as a communication process which is constructed, organized, regulated, and realized through human actions. Aviation safety is and will remain the central concern of our era, for all people living all over the world. Unpublished and intra-sector data demonstrate that communication problems have indeed cost lives or provoked major incidents. Comprehensive studies of the role of communication in aviation incidents are limited, but they demonstrate how incident data provide insights to accident causes. Incidents are violations of instructions or legal parameters that may or in fact affect the safety of flight operations. US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) anonymous Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) reveals over 60% communication problems, in reported cases.

The communicative function of an utterance corresponds to the speaker's intention in producing a given message. For example, his/her intention may be to request information, to thank, to deny approval and so on.

Analysis of the research into this problem. The theoretical underpinning for describing language functions derives from the work of philosophers of language on concepts such as speech acts and illocutionary force, and linguists such as J. L. Austin, M. A. K. Halliday, J. R. Searle. More recently these theoretical categories have been of practical use in discourse analysis by such researchers as M. Coulthard,E. Roulet, J. Sinclair. Phraseology of radio communication was the object of linguistic research - O. Akimova, D. Gibbon, I. Lushchikhina, T. Malkovska, J. Mell, K. Sassen, M. Solnyshkina, etc.

Historically, insufficient English language proficiency on the part of the flight crew or the controller has contributed to a number of accidentsandserious incidents.

The following events include «Language Clarity» as a contributory factor [8]:

On October, 14, 2004, a Bombardier CRJ-200 being operated by Pinnacle Airlines on a nonrevenue positioning flight crashed into a residential area in the vicinity of Jefferson City Memorial Airport, Missouri after the flight crew attempted to fly the aircraft beyond its performance limits and a high altitude stall, to which their response was inappropriate, then followed.

On March, 27, 1977, a KLM Boeing 747-200 began its low visibility take-off at Tenerife without requesting or receiving take-off clearance and a collision with a Boeing 747-100 backtracking the same runway subsequently occurred. Both aircraft were destroyed by the impact and consequential fire and 583 people died. The Investigation attributed the crash primarily to the actions and inactions of the KLM Captain, who was the Operator's Chief Flying Instructor. Safety Recommendations made emphasized the importance of standard phraseology in all normal radio communications and avoidance of the phrase «take-off» in ATC Departure Clearances.

On May, 25, 2000 a UK-operated Shorts SD330 waiting for take-off at Paris CDG in normal visibility at night on a taxiway angled in the take-off direction due to its primary function as an exit for opposite direction landings was given a conditional line up clearance by a controller who had erroneously assumed without checking that it was at the runway threshold. After an aircraft which had just landed had passed, the SD330 began to line up unaware that an MD83 had just been cleared in French to take off from the full length and a collision occurred.

On September, 21, 2012, two aircraft came into conflict in Class A airspace whilst under radar control at night and loss of separation was resolved by TCAS RA responses by both aircraft. Investigation found that one of the aircraft had passed a procedurally-documented clearance limit without ATC clearance or intervention and that situational awareness of its crew had been diminished by communications with the conflicting aircraft being conducted in Spanish rather than English. A Safety Recommendation on resolving the «persistent problem» of such language issues was made, noting that a similar recommendation had been made 11 years earlier.

On January, 9, 1998, a Boeing 767-300 operated by United Airlines experienced an electrical systems malfunction subsequently attributed to arcing in a faulty electrical loom. The crew elected to divert to London Heathrow where emergency evacuation was carried out on a taxiway upon landing).

The goal and the specific tasks of the article is to conduct a discourse analysis and to define communicative functions of Aviation radiotelephony discourse.

Statement regarding the basic material of the research and the justification of the results obtained. Pragmatic conventions of language are sometimes difficult to learn because of the disparity between language forms and functions. While forms are the outward manifestation of language, functions are the realization of those forms. «How much does that cost?» is usually a form functioning as a question, and «He bought a car» functions as a statement. But linguistic forms are not always unambiguous in their function. «I can't find my umbrella», uttered by a frustrated adult who is late for work on a rainy day may be a frantic request for all in the household to join in a search. A child who says «I want some ice cream» is rarely stating a simple fact or observation but requesting ice cream in her own intimate register. A sign on the street that says «one way» functions to guide traffic in only one direction.

Communication may be regarded as a combination of acts, a series of elements with purpose and intent. Communication is not merely an event, something that happens; it is functional, purposive, and designed to bring about some effect-some change, however subtle or unobservable on the environment of hearers and speakers. Communication is a series of communicative acts or speech acts, to use John Austin's term [1], which are used systematically to accomplish particular purposes. Austin stressed the importance of consequences, the perlocutionary force, of linguistic communication. Researchers have since been led to examine communication in terms of the effect that utterances achieve. That effect has implications for both the production and comprehension of an utterance; both modes of performance serve to bring the communicative act to its ultimate purpose.

The functional approach to describing language is one that has its roots in traditions of British linguist J.R. Firth |"21 who viewed language as interactive and interpersonal, «a way of behaving and making others behave». Since then the term function has been variously interpreted. Michael Halliday P1, who provided one of the best expositions of language functions, used the term to mean the purposive nature of communication, and outlined seven different functions of language:

The instrumental function serves to manipulate the environment to cause certain events to happen.

The regulatory function of language is the control of events. While such control is sometimes difficult to distinguish from the instrumental function, regulatory functions of language are not so much the «unleashing» of certain power as the maintenance of control.

The representational function is the use of language to make statements, convey facts and knowledge, explain, or report-that is, to «represent» reality as one sees it.

The interactional function of language serves to ensure social maintenance. «Phatic communion», Malinowski's term referring to the communicative contact between and among human beings that simply allows them to establish social contact and to keep channels of communication open, is part of the interactional function of language. Successful interactional communication requires knowledge of slang, jargon, jokes, folklore, cultural mores, politeness and formality expectations, and other keys to social exchange.

The personal function allows a speaker to express feelings, emotions, personality, «gut-level» recreations. A person's individuality is usually characterized by his or her use of the personal function of communication. In the personal nature of language, cognition, affect and culture all interact in ways that have not yet been explored.

The heuristic function involves language used to acquire knowledge, to learn about the environment. Heuristic function is often conveyed in the form of questions that will lead to answers.

The imaginative function serves to create imaginary systems or ideas. Telling fairy tales, joking, or writing a novel are all uses of the imaginative function.

These seven different functions of language are neither discrete nor mutually exclusive. A single sentence or conversation might incorporate many different functions simultaneously.

Yet it is the understanding of how to use linguistic forms to achieve these functions of language that comprises the crux of second language learning. A learner might acquire correct word order, syntax, and lexical items but not understand how to achieve a desired and intended function through careful selection of words, structure, intonation, nonverbal signals, and astute perception of the context of a particular stretch of discourse. Halliday's seven functions of language tend to mask the almost infinite variety and complexity of functions that we accomplish through language. Van Ek and Alexander's |"71 taxonomy lists almost 70 different functions to be taught in English curricula. Some of these functions are listed below:

Greeting, parting, inviting, accepting.

Complimenting, congratulating, flattering, seducing, charming, bragging.

Interrupting.

Requesting.

Evading, lying, shifting blame, changing the subject.

Criticizing, reprimanding, ridiculing, insulting, threatening, warning.

Complaining.

Accusing, denying.

Agreeing, disagreeing, arguing.

Persuading, insisting, suggesting, reminding, asserting, advising.

Reporting, evaluating, commenting.

Commanding, ordering, demanding.

Questioning, probing.

Sympathizing.

Apologizing, making excuses.

All of these fall into one or more of Halliday's seven functions, and all of them are common everyday acts whose performance requires knowledge of language.

Since intentions are inherently linked to the activities that are being undertaken by the speakers, it is evident that those tasks which are peculiar to the jobs of pilot and controller will give rise to a limited range of communicative functions occurring with a high degree of frequency.

J. Melll and C. Godmet [4] suggest the dominant functions in pilot-controller dialogue. The functions have been grouped into four categories corresponding to their role in carrying out ATC and piloting tasks. These categories are:

Triggering actions.

Sharing information.

Managing the pilot-controller relationship.

Managing the dialogue.

The «triggering actions» category is the core function of pilot-controller communications. Supporting the core is the «sharing information» category in the sense that appropriate actions can only be triggered when the pilot and controller are in possession of sufficient shared information about the current situation. The two last categories play a subordinate mediating role with regard to the first two. An examination of the functions listed under these headings will give an idea

The individual functions in each broad category are labelled in the checklist without making reference to specific ATC/piloting topics such as clearances to take off, flight plan changes or radar identification. All of these functions and their associated language forms can be usefully learned and practised by referring to general topics in the context of everyday communication.

The first category `triggering actions' is realized through orders, requests and offers to act, advice, permissions and undertakings. For example, the orders may take the following forms:

affirmative sentences: Skyfly 053, clearedILS approach, runway 09.

imperative sentences: Critter 592, turn left heading three-three-zero.

The example of advice: Traffic avoided thunderstorm to the north.

The requests can be from the pilot (Request any known conflicting traffic) and from the air traffic controller (Reportpassing flight level 150). The peculiar feature of these requests is the usage of different words request for a pilot and report for an air traffic controller.

The second category `sharing information' contains the following communicative functions: information concerning present facts, information concerning the future, information concerning immediate/recent past events, information concerning the past, necessity, feasibility/capacity. All these can be addressed both to the pilot and the air traffic controller. For example,

Air Traffic Controller (ATC): Skyfly 102, roger, your expected approach time 35 due traffic.

ATC: Are you able to lose 10 minutes on route?

Aircraft (ACFT): Negative, only 7 minutes.

The important part of the radiotelephony communication is managing the pilot-controller relationship that comprises such communicative functions according to the research of J. Melll and

Godmet [4]: greet/take leave; thank; respond to greeting/leave-taking; respond to thanks; complain; express dissatisfaction; reprimand; apologise; express satisfaction; express concern/apprehension; reassure; encourage.

The last category of communicative functions «managing the dialogue» comprises the following: self-correct; paraphrase; - close an exchange; - request response; check understanding; check certainty; correct a misunderstanding; read back; acknowledge; declare non-understanding; request repetition; request confirmation; request clarification; give confirmation; give disconfirmation; give clarification; relay an order; relay a request to act; relay a request for permission.

Contextual factors may result in certain functions being more or less «marked» for different attitudes such as politeness, insistence and so on. These markers, which may be lexical («please») or grammatical («Could you possibly give me...?»), need to be learned and practiced as well as the language structures for the basic functions. Many communicative functions are paired with one another. That is to say that a given function (e. g. request permission) is commonly adjacent to another given function (e. g. give permission) in the context of an exchange.

Conclusions

radio communication language function

The air traffic phraseology is highly context- dependent and is therefore difficult to decipher for anyone non interested in the field of aviation. It also uses a specific exchange structure, which is crucial for maintaining smooth communication in a busy airspace. In the interest of safety, indirectness and expressions of politeness are used only on rare occasions, although there is some general familiarity between the pilots and controllers.

The primary purpose of defining the communicative functions is to enable language course planners and teachers to formulate linguistically appropriate objectives for training and testing. While no claim is made for the checklist to be exhaustive, its coverage has been cross-checked against the published results of a number of linguistic or human factors studies of pilot-controller communications. Further research can be conducted relative to the particular levels of discourse analysis, namely: phonetic and phonological, lexical, grammatical, pragmatic.

Bibliography

1. Austin J. L. How to do things with words / J. L. Austin. - Oxford University Press, 1962. - 174 p.

2. Firth J. R. Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951 / J. R. Firth. - London: Oxford University Press, 1957. - 234 p.

3. Halliday M. A. K. Language structure and language function / M. A. K. Halliday // New Horizons in Linguistics, ed. J Lyons. - Penguin, 1970. - P.140-165.

4. Mell J. Aeronautical Radiotelephony Communicative Functions / J. Mell, C. Godmet // Direction de la Navigation Aerienne. DNA8 (F). - 40 p.

5. Searle J. R. A classification of illocutionary acts / J. R. Searle // Language in Society. - Vol. 5. - 1976. - P. 1-23.

6. Sinclair J. Towards an Analysis of Discourse / J. Sinclair, M. Coulthard. - Oxford University Press, 1975. - 168 p.

7. Van J. A. Threshold Level English (Council of Europe Modern Languages Project) /J. A. Van, L. G. Alexander. - 1980. - 253 p.

8. SKYbrary. Radio Telephony Communications. 2018.

9. Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words.London: Oxford University Press.

10. Firth, J. R. 1957. Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951.London: Oxford University Press.

11. Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. “Language structure and language function”. New Horizons in Linguistics, edited by J. Lyons Penguin, 140-165.

12. Mell, J., and Godmet, C. “Aeronautical Radiotelephony Communicative Functions”. Direction de la Navigation Aerienne. DNA8 (F).

13. Searle, J. R. 1976. “A classification of illocutionary acts”. Language in Society, 5(1): 1-23.

14. Sinclair, J., and Coulthard, M. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse.London: Oxford University Press.

15. Van, J. A., and Alexander, L. G. 1980. Threshold Level English (Council of Europe Modern Languages Project).

16. SKYbrary. Radio Telephony Communications. 2018.

У статті розглядається проблема визначення комунікативних функцій дискурсу авіаційного радіотелефонного зв'язку. Автор обгрунтовує важливість вивчення людського чинника при розв'язанні завдань, пов'язаних із підвищенням рівня безпеки польотів і ефективністю використання авіаційної техніки в цивільній авіації в контексті ведення радіотелефонного зв'язку між пілотом і диспетчером. Стандартна фразеологія у поєднанні з авіаційною англійською мовою є робочим мовним кодом. Незважаючи на удосконалення літаків і зв'язку, все ще існує потреба в міжособистісному спілкуванні під час щоденних рейсів. Безпека польотів є ключовим поняттям в авіації.

У статті проаналізовані вимоги ІСАО стосовно рівнів володіння англійською мовою на міжнародних повітряних трасах. У статті автор підкреслює важливість ролі четвертого рівня ІСАО з англійської мови в процесі ведення радіообміну між авіаційними фахівцями. Визначені особливості стандартної фразеології радіообміну пілотів і диспетчерів при здійсненні професійної діяльності.

В ході теоретичного аналізу статистичних даних аварійних і особливих ситуацій, які сталися в результаті порушення стандартної фразеології радіообміну, автор приходить до висновку про те, що результат від практичного застосування знань з професійного авіаційного дискурсу пов'язаний із безпекою польотів на міжнародних повітряних трасах. Уточнення або прохання роз'яснити вказівку є інтерактивним інструментом розв'язання проблем у повітрі, що дозволяє учасникам радіообміну розуміти один одного.

Комунікативна функція висловлювання відповідає наміру повідомлення під час радіообміну. Автор виконує аналіз мовних форм і комунікативних функцій дискурсу авіаційного радіотелефонного зв'язку. Представлено класифікацію функцій, відповідно до якої виділяється сім функцій мови: інструментальна, регулювальна, функція взаємодії, представницька, особиста, евристична, уявна.

Функції дискурсу авіаційної радіотелефонії були згруповані в чотири категорії відповідно до їх ролі в здійсненні управління повітряним рухом і пілотування. Ці категорії є такими: запуск дії; обмін інформацією; управління стосунками між пілотом і диспетчером; управління діалогом.

Ключові слова: спілкування, комунікативна функція, дискурс авіаційної радіотелефонії, функціональний підхід, діалог між пілотом і диспетчером.

В статье рассматривается проблема определения коммуникативных функций дискурса авиационной радиотелефонной связи. Автор обосновывает важность глубокого изучения человеческого фактора при решении задач повышения уровня безопасности полетов и эффективности использования авиационной техники в гражданской авиации в контексте ведения радиотелефонной связи между пилотом и диспетчером.

Стандартная фразеология в сочетании с авиационным английским языком представляет собой рабочий языковой код. Несмотря на усовершенствование самолетов и связи, все еще существует потребность в межличностном общении во время ежедневных рейсов. Безопасность полетов является ключевым понятием в авиации.

В статье проанализированы требования САО относительно уровней владения английским языком на международных воздушных трассах. В статье автор подчеркивает важность роли четвертого уровня САО по английскому языку в процессе выполнения профессиональной деятельности авиационных специалистов. Определены особенности стандартной фразеологии радиообмена пилотов и диспетчеров при выполнения профессиональной деятельности.

В процессе теоретического анализа статистических данных аварийных и особых ситуаций, которые произошли в результате нарушения радиообмена, автор приходит к выводу о том, что результат от практического применения знаний по профессиональному авиационному дискурсу связан с безопасностью полетов на международных воздушных трасах. Вопросы по поводу уточнения или просьбы разъяснить являются интерактивным инструментом немедленного разрешения проблем, позволяющего участникам срочно восстановить недопонимание. Коммуникативная функция высказывания соответствует намерению говорящего во время продуцирования данного сообщения.

Автор делает анализ языковых форм и коммуникативных функций дискурса авиационной радиотелефонной связи. Представлена классификация функций языка, согласно которой выделяется семь различных функций: инструментальная, регулирующая, взаимодействия, представительская, личная, эвристическая; воображаемая. Функции дискурса авиационной радиотелефонии были сгруппированы в четыре категории, соответствующие их роли в осуществлении УВД и пилотирования. Эти категории: запуск действия; обмена информацией; управление отношениями между пилотом и диспетчером; управления диалогом.

Ключевые слова: общение, коммуникативная функция, дискурс авиационной радиотелефонии, функциональный подход, диалог между пилотом и диспетчером.

Размещено на Allbest.ru