NASA NTRS1997
In this study we examined what linguistic strategies pilots use when they have to challenge the actions of a colleague, and how their communications balance the need for informativeness with the need for assuring the other's cooperation. Two strategies emerged for captains. They either gave commands or they made suggestions that referred to actions of the crew. Both strategies explicitly state what action should be taken but they differ in their social implications. Commands are direct insofar as they entail a strong obligation for the listener to comply with the speaker' s request. Suggestions are less direct in this respect. However, by using the collegial "Let's do," speakers appeal to the solidarity between themselves and their listeners and seek compliance in this way. Commands, in contrast, are inherently authoritative and imply an asymmetry in status. Speakers by giving a command, express their belief that they are socially more powerful than their listeners and that they are thus licensed to command. That is, speakers seek listener compliance by appeal to their status. Status-based commands were more frequent among male captains than among female captains. Female captains instead were likely to shift the motivation for their commands away from their status to some objective necessity by referring to some problem or goal It remains to be seen, however, how captains' strategies were affected by the severity of a problem situation. Results in a preliminary study involving only male participants, suggests that pilots increased the directness of their utterances in situations that they perceived to be risky. Thus the observation that male captains used complex communications half of the time while female captains did so 75% of the time, could indicate that male captains were more likely than female captains to change their strategies with the severity of situations. Both male and female first officers in this study were less direct than captains. The most common strategy of first officers was to point to some problem or to remind the captain of a given goal. What corrective action should be taken and by whom was not explicitly stated but implied and left to the captain. In their other strategies, permission seeking and confirmation-seeking questions, first officers were more explicit about a corrective action. In the first case, they volunteered to do some course of action but left the final decision to the captain. In the latter case, they inquired or confirmed whether the captain wanted some action. Although all three strategies seek the compliance of the listener by appeal to his authority, there are important differences: By asking permission seeking and confirmation-seeking questions, first officers specify the action for which they want the captain's compliance. Compliance, however, is not demanded but requested. By alerting to a problem or to a goal, in contrast, first of officers seek the captain's compliance only with their assessment of the situation but not with a particular course of action. That is, they place the captain under no explicit obligation to initiate a corrective action but do so only indirectly by assuming that a course of action is self-evident once the problem has been acknowledged.