The level at which linguistic and management strategies affect the motivation of employees: Linguistic in terms of mannerism and politeness
Background and Literature review
The research describe research outcomes into linguistic mannerism as well as linguistic politeness of English speaking employees and such type of politeness strategy for instance, speech acts of employee greeting as the employees adhere to strict conventions of polite behavior which eroded over time in English speaking world. Thus, important to retain employee mannerism as well as politeness to determine levels of linguistic and management affecting motivation of employees. Providing researcher affective support as recognized to successful work station comprising of academic team as school oriented employees or faculties. Thus, research on mannerism and politeness provide plausible answers to research questions. The presentation of framework referring teachers selecting corrective feedback based on mannerism politeness notion of language assumption from given specific contexts. Discussion of employee motivation in language context were limited by the understanding the field of applied linguistics being attached to it. The need to review standards applied in linguistics approach, go on to provide overview of research into motivation, and demonstrate utility of research concepts as basis for research agenda for employee studies as presented. Indeed, literature on motivation and suggest that there is an important link in linguistic strategy and management through mannerism and politeness which could account for claimed power of employee success. Politeness is important aspect of human communication as Brown and Levinson developed theory of linguistic politeness, most sociolinguistic studies have looked at politeness (Hartung, 2001, p. 214). The positive face need is ‘the positive consistent self-image by interactants’ and the negative face need is basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction like, freedom of action and freedom from imposition (Brown and Levinson, 1987, p. 61). Positive politeness attends to a person’s positive face needs and includes such speech acts as compliments, invitations and greetings. It expresses good-will and solidarity. Thus, negative politeness attends to a person’s negative face needs and includes indirectness and apologies (Holmes 1995, p. 154). However, Kleinberger Gunther (2001, p. 118) claims that polite speech act can only be effective if the receiver understands how it was intended. Degrees of familiarity and respect between interactants can be described in terms of model: polite behavior tends to be more attentive and elaborate with acquaintances and casual friends than with people at the two extremes of social distance (Holmes, 1995). The linguistic expression of politeness is accompanied by verbal and non-verbal actions, such as eye contact, smile, and hand-shake. There explores how power is embedded in manners of speech exchanged in everyday interaction among superiors and subordinates as drawing upon linguistic theory of mannerism and politeness. Politeness, linguistic behaviors used to demonstrate regard and consideration as sensitive to social distribution of motivation among employees. When superiors use politeness, they are more likely than subordinates to employ subtype of politeness that demonstrates consideration by intimating social familiarity and camaraderie. The literature shows how linguistic perspectives can contribute to understanding of employee motivation phenomena (Morand, 1996 p. 544). Modern research on politeness was dominated by a strategic approach for several years: politeness was seen as a result of the rational need for balanced interpersonal relations, politeness mechanisms were considered universal. However, the investigations carried out on different cultures soon began to show that things were not that simple: cultures strongly differ not only in forms, but also in the social meanings associated with various strategies, in internal structure of speech acts, or in the expectations concerning verbal behavior, politeness studies seem to have fallen into contradiction between universality and culture (Morand, 1996 p. 544).
Research Questions
1. What is meant by levels of linguistic and management strategies? How the latter places an importance to employees?
2. How the two strategies do mentioned in question 1 affect the motivation status of employees? Discuss and provide examples
3. What is meant by employee motivation? Explain aspects and process of motivation adhering to employee based context
4. What is MANNERISM in linguistic domain all about? How it affect employee motivation? Briefly discuss
5. What is POLITENESS in linguistic domain all about? How it affect employee motivation? Briefly discuss
Research Hypothesis
Hy 1: There is positive level of linguistic and management strategies affecting motivation of employees. Hy 2: There is negative level of linguistic and management strategies affecting motivation of employees
Hy 3: There is positive MANNERISM and positive POLITENESS affecting employee motivation. Hy 4: There is negative MANNERISM and negative POLITENESS affecting employee motivation
Research Objectives and Methodology
Recognizing in linguistic and management strategies that affect employee motivation, finding out levels of the strategies mostly linguistics in terms of mannerism and politeness. The identification of knowledge centered research that finds out several ideal levels of linguistic, management strategies concerning employees. The research study will indicate and include appropriate preliminary literature presenting as one ideal research methodology to execute. Determining in mannerism and politeness that affects employee motivation through language assimilation and adaptation. Thus, there will be such need to compare and contrast mannerism and politeness of employees through case study approach by means of case survey format through statements integrating scale system interpretation; five point system comprising of several sections. The case survey will be given to a total of 50 employees comprising of faculty members.
- 1st section refers to personal profile of the employees
- 2nd section refers to survey statements regarding levels of linguistics strategies that employees perceive to be essential in motivating them
- 3rd section implies to survey statements regarding levels of management strategies that employees perceive to be essential in motivating them
- 4th section adheres to survey statements about linguistics in accordance to MANNERISM of employees
- 5th section integrates to survey statements about linguistics in accordance to POLITENESS of employees
References
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge.
Hartung, M. (2001). Höflichkeit und das Kommunikationsverhalten Jugendlicher”. In: Lüger, Heinz-Helmut (ed.): Höflichkeitsstile. Frankfurt a.M./Berlin/Bern etc.: 213-232. (= Cross Cultural Communication 7)
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London/New York
Kleinberger Günther, U. (2001). Sprachliche Höflichkeit in innerbetrieblichen e-mails. In: Lüger, Heinz-Helmut (ed.): Höflichkeitsstile. Frankfurt a.M./ Berlin/Bern etc.: 147-164. (= Cross Cultural Communication 7).
Morand, D. (1996). Dominance, Deference, and Egalitarianism in Organizational Interaction: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Power and Politeness. Organization Science, Vol. 7, No. 5 (Sep. – Oct., 1996), pp. 544-556. Published by: INFORMS
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment