The Role of Impression Management in the Discourse of Negotiation
Lector univ. dr. Otilia HUTIU
Universitatea „Aurel Vlaicu” din Arad
The paper briefly presents the framework of impression management theory which has its
roots in literature, philosophy and sociology .Impression management is the process through which
people try to control the impressions other people form of them. It is a goal-directed conscious or
unconscious attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object or event by
regulating and controlling information in social interaction. More recently, ideas, concepts and
principles from this theory have been used by communication scholars and discourse analysts to
understand talk in interaction.
The tactics and strategies of impression management are applied to negotiation excerpts in
English and Romanian analyzing the role they have in fulfilling the aim of the negotiation
discourse.
1. Introduction
Impression management theory states that any individual or organization must establish and
maintain impressions that are congruent with the perceptions they want to convey to their audience
(Goffman, 1959). The idea that perception is reality is the basis for this sociological theory whose
main presumption is that the other’s perceptions of you or your organisation become the reality
from which they form ideas and the basis for intended behaviours. The theory draws on the seminal
writings of Burke (1962), Austin (1961) and Goffman (1959) but it can be traced back even to Plato
who spoke of the “great stage of human life” or to Shakespeare’s famous line “All the world is a
stage, and all the man and women merely players “. In his book The Presentation of Self in
Everyday Life (1959) Erwin Goffman paraphrased the famous quotation as: “the entire world is not,
of course, a stage, but the crucial ways in which it isn’t are not easy to specify” (Goffman,
1959:17).
Ideas, concepts, principles and data from impression management approach in sociology and
social psychology have been applied also in various other fields, such as: organisational behaviour,
communication studies and discourse analysis. Research in organisational behaviour is concerned
with the perceptions and attitudes of employees, such as perceptions of leadership, job satisfaction,
job performance, interviews, etc. Scholars in the field of communication and discourse analysis
have tried to analyse the verbal strategies and tactics used in various communicative activities
performed within an institutional organisational background and which are meant to create certain
perceptions in the targeted audience.
E. Goffman (1959, 1974, 1981) provided many insightful analyses of self-presentational
behaviour between strangers. However, critics consider that his examples lack an underlying
unifying formal treatment which was later on provided by scholars in the field of organisational and
communication studies (e.g. Jones 1964; Tedeschi, Schelenker and Bonnoma ,1971; Bradley, 1978
quoted in Tedeschi and Malburg, 1984).
317
We shall briefly present the major forms of self-presentation in organisational behaviour as
they were outlined by Tedeschi and Malburg (1984). These functions become manifest through the
use of tactical and strategic verbal activities.
Self-presentational behaviour may serve assertive or defensive functions for the actor /
speaker. Assertive behaviour is initiated in order to establish for the actor a certain identity (e.g. that
of a leader in a group). A person’s assertiveness may become manifest through the innovative
suggestions he makes , through the fact that he talks more or becomes more visible than other
members of the group.
Defensive self-presentation behaviour occurs when a person is faced with a difficult
situation or a predicament when negative or undesirable qualities may be attributed to the respective
person, in other words, when his/her face is threatened. (e.g. a worker is made responsible for poor
performance).
Assertive and defensive behaviours can be analysed through laboratory experiments,
interviews and linguistic analyses offering valuable research material for sociology, psychology or
discourse analysis.
For example defensive self-presentations are manifest through speech acts such accounts
(under the form of excuses , justifications, disclaimers ):” We did not know” ;denial, clarification,
counter-attack: “We did not do it” or apologies. “We are sorry”
Speech acts frequently encountered in assertive behaviour are :ingratiation, “We are not like
that”; threats: “Raise wages or else we’ll stop work “; exemplifications: “I never come late to the
office”; supplication : “We too are a victim of this taxation system” and self-promotion: “Production
has significantly increased since our company has taken over this factory”.
According to Scott and Lyman (1968) quoted in Bülow-Møller (2006) accounts are offered
under the form of excuses or justifications in order to escape negative typification or disapproval.
An excuse is a verbal statement in which the speaker denies responsibility for the negative
consequences of an action. A justification, on the other hand, accepts responsibility for the effects
but does not accept the negative implications of such responsibility. Justifications usually align the
individual’s actions with some norms or rules within the social group. A disclaimer is an
explanation provided before performance of an action.
Denials may involve assertions that one did not make a decision or perform a particular
action, that it is a case of mistaken identity and may include alibis or witnesses.
Apologies, like justifications, are attempts to align the individuals with the rules of society
and to mitigate negative evaluations. Apologies are frequently connected with restitutions or
compensatory acts. Thus, for instance, a large corporation accused of environmental pollution may
offer apologies but they will be of little effect if they are not accompanied by clean-up actions or
other compensatory activities.
The term ingratiation refers to those linguistic strategies that are meant to gain approval and
consolidate relationships (e.g. praise, approbation, opinion conformity, etc.). In various types of
communicative situations, like negotiations for instance, too much reliance upon ingratiation
strategies may convey an identity as a weak person. Such an identity in situations that require
firmness and strength would not help the individual be successful. Negotiators who are too
cooperative usually maintain relationships but prolong the duration of negotiations and do not
obtain too many benefits.
Exemplification consists in acting as a model or exemplar of some morally virtuous or
principled conduct.
Supplication involves the projection of an identity as a weak and dependent person. The
purpose of the tactic is to induce social responsibility and gain help or advantage from the targeted
audience.
Self-promotion concerns those verbal strategies that are made in order to claim
responsibility and credit for the positive consequences of decisions and actions.
318
Impression management behaviours are part of the social influence process. Often the
influence represents a two-stage process in which an identity is first established and then a
particular form of influence is attempted. For example, ingratiation of the hearer or audience may
induce liking and trust prior to a persuasive influence communication. Or, a person may project an
identity of high prestige prior to sending threats or promises.
A study of the impression management aspects in various forms of interactional talk may
prove to be useful as it can help the analyst demonstrate how the respective speech event is
structured and what are the functions of the impression management forms .
We have tried in what follows to analyse impression management in instances of negotiation
discourse because this is a type of communicative activity in which power relations and influence
play important roles both in its development and outcome.
2. Negotiation – Definition and Generic Outline
Despite the variety of forms in which it can be encountered, negotiation has basically two
complementary meanings (C.Thuderoz, 2002): a) bargaining (with the Romanian equivalent
“tocmeală”) referring mainly to the exchanges occurring within trade; and b) negotiation seen as a
social activity in which the central aim is to reach a ‘wise agreement’ (Fisher et al. 1991) based on
collectively set up rules. In practice, both the former restricted meaning and the second more
general one are often used interchangingly.
In the present paper negotiation has been analysed from a generic perspective. It can be
considered as a persuasive genre (Kinneavy, 1971) as far as its communicative aim is concerned,
because during the negotiation process each negotiating party tries to persuade the other that his/her
standpoint is correct. The discourse is focused on the hearer as any other persuasive discourse and
tends to achieve an identity between the speakers and hearer’s intellectual convictions or emotional
attitudes. This identification can also trigger physical action.
In the case of negotiation this effort for attaining identical views and/or for inducing some
action is performed by both discussants. The process of negotiation is a two-way process of
persuasion that results in a change of the state of affairs if the negotiation is successful.
Mihai (2000) includes negotiation in the same category of persuasive discourse as the legal
and political ones. The sole distinction in his opinion is that, within negotiation, the dialogic aspect
has an impact on the competitiveness character and on the argumentation strategies, as the audience
is no longer a passive one, it can and does, usually react to the argumentation presented.
3. Negotiation and Impression Management
Aspects of impression management and personal behaviour are rendered manifest mostly at
the stylistic level.
Generally, negotiating styles fall into two categories: the competitive style used by people
who are decided to achieve their objectives at any costs, and the collaborative style used by people
interested in keeping relations not only in achieving their objectives.
When negotiating, people usually play one of the following three games: win-win, win-lose
or lose-lose.
a) The win-win game brings, if successful, the best outcome, because it ends in a solution
satisfactory to all parties. An effective negotiator overlooks conflicting means and positions (us
versus them) and focuses on satisfying ends (us versus the problem). This game is more likely to
occur when both parties in a negotiation have similar goals. Unfortunately, this is not always
possible and when no win-win solution is in sight, the parties resort to the use of the compromise.
b) When both sides lose something and gain something, the game is known as the lose-lose
game. It is one of the most frequently encountered solutions in practice because it gives partial
satisfaction to both parties and the loss of face and power, being mutual, is more easily accepted.
319
c) People who start out from unwavering positions are setting themselves up for a win-lose
outcome. This type of outcome although frequently encountered, is recommended only in single
negotiations, because if a long-term relation is envisaged the losing party will accept such an
outcome only temporarily.
Generally, the negotiation handbooks stress the fact that the outcome of a good negotiation
is one that makes both parties happy and thus collaborative, rather than competitive tactics are
recommended.
The strategies or tactics used for conflict resolution are highly dependent on the negotiating
style.
The behaviour of the negotiators and consequently the style they adopt is highly dependent
on the focus they place on two aspects: outcomes or relationships. In the case of long-term
negotiations when relationships are important (diplomatic negotiations or labour-management
negotiations fall into this category) self-presentation and therefore aspects of impression
management receive significant attention.
In what follows the paper discusses the analysis of real life negotiation transcripts
highlighting the forms of self-presentation encountered and their role in the negotiation.
The analyses have been carried out on two transcripts of negotiations, one in English and the
other in Romanian.
One criterion in selecting these two transcripts resides in the fact that they both are complete
texts, they contain the entire communicative event and thus a macrostructure could be postulated.
The macrostructure contains phases, moves and steps. Starting from the pragma-dialectical model
of argumentative discourse (van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1994, 2000, 2004) we have suggested
the following structure : opening phase, conflicting phase, bargaining-argumentative phase and
concluding phase. These phases have been identified in both transcripts.
The English transcript has been retrieved from the web and we have no additional
information concerning aspects like accent, pauses, and rhythm. These kinds of texts are not
originally meant for linguistic analysis; therefore no transcription conventions have been used.
For the Romanian negotiation transcript we have maintained the same form in order to
maintain a uniform notation although its has been transcribed from tapes.
The transcript in English renders the negotiations held at the 3rd Congress Hill Conference
on Middle East Issues organized by the Americans for Peace Now Organization in February 2000.
The series of Congress Hill Conferences are periodically held, aiming at exploring possible
solutions for the Middle East conflict. The participants argument their positions and try through
negotiation to find mutually acceptable solutions for the key problems of the conflict. The
participants are diplomats, academics, and journalists from the U.S., Israel and the Arab countries,
usually people that are or were engaged officially in negotiations in the Middle East. The outcomes
of this series of conferences help them and the other negotiators in their future official negotiations.
The topic of the conference is the issue of Palestinian refugees and the possible solutions. Its
main aim is to establish the positions and suggestions of the parties and the limits within which they
are willing to negotiate.
The participants in this conference are: Debra De Lee and Lewis Roth, members of
Americans for Peace Now organisation , acting as moderators, two keynote speakers - dr. Ruth
Klinov from Israel and Ziad Abu-Zayyad, a representative of the Palestinian Authority, American
and Arab academics and diplomats: Dr.Shibley Telhami, Professor Donna Arzt, Phyllis Oakley
Foreign Service Officer, and Matt Dorf, Director of Governmental Relations and Public Affairs for
the American Jewish Congress.
The Romanian corpus analyzed is part of a series of 6 audiocassettes containing a session of
labor management negotiations, which were held in 1993. The participants are trade union leaders
from Romanian companies belonging to the metallurgical industry and members of the employers'
320
association from the same industrial branch. These negotiations had as a main goal to establish the
wages and employment terms for the next year.
The language used by the participants can be classified as ‘average everyday
Romanian’ (Dascalu Jinga, 2002), i.e. a language used by people with an average educational
background in everyday activities 1.
Although initially, the taping of the negotiations was performed for different reasons than
the linguistic analysis, the discussants in both transcripts were aware of the fact that they were being
taped.
Analysis of the English Transcript
In the opening stage the two moderators Ms DeLee and Mr. Roth give a short presentation
of the organizing institution Americans for Peace Now and then pass one to the next two moves that
fulfil two important functions pertaining to the management of the discourse rather than to the
argumentative structure, namely: 1) establishing the agenda- the refugee issue and 2) establishing
procedure – the order in which the discussants are going to deliver their speech.
As the meeting is a highly formal event the role and the turn-taking procedures are strictly
explained and observed.
Further on, in the confrontational stage the keynote speakers give a first presentation that
contains their standpoints and argumentation. This is followed by the panellists’ somewhat shorter
interventions. The proposals are presented by each party in the bargaining argumentative phase
together with the counterproposals. The conclusions are formulated in the end of the meeting by
the moderators. The argumentative order of standpoint –arguments –conclusion or rather proposals/
recommendations is respected in the meeting. Proposals are formulated by the keynote speakers
while recommendations by the panellists in keeping with the roles established for each discussant in
this opening stage: the keynote speakers are allowed to give longer presentation and their
conclusions act as proposals while the panellists’ interventions are rather considered as opinions
given by experts. All the panellists have been involved in refugee and Middle East issues and their
opinions can be regarded as expert or third-party advice. For instance, in her intervention Donna
Arzt, one of the panellists and expert in refugee resettlement, frames 2 her conclusion under the form
of a recommendation.
411-413 I think it is time to start bringing them in because they definitely have more expertise than the
UNRWA has in terms of the kinds of issues about forward –looking settlements. So that is one of my
recommendations.
In the presentation of the discussants the moderators use an elaborate, formal style stressing
the achievements and expertise of the participants, as if trying to render their intervention more
legitimate and authoritative:
20 Today I will introduce our moderator who will in turn introduce our Keynote Speakers and our other
21 very distinguished panelists. Our Keynote Speakers will each make opening remarks, and then we will..
41 Our Keynote Speaker from Israel is Dr. Ruth Klinov. She is Professor (Emeritus) at Hebrew University
42 and Chair of the Department of Economics and Man at Emek Yezreel Academic College.
45 Klinov wrote extensively on the issues of immigration and refugees.
Dascalu Jinga defines the currently used everyday Romanian in the following way: “ Romana de uz general mediu
coincide intr-o anumita masura cu ‘romana vorbita curent’ la care se refera Ciolac (1997,99) si pe care autorea o
defineste ca fiind o varianta substandard supradialectala (situata in afara limbajelor speciale) destinata conversatiei
cotidiene” (43: 2002)
1
2 The notion of ‘frame (Goffman, 1974) focuses on the definition which participants give to their current social activity, to
what is going on, what the situation is and the roles of the interactants. Framing and reframing is achieved via fronting and backing
techniques which have the role to unravel possible interests behind positions and thus to prepare proposals. For an extensive account
of framing in negotiation Holmes (1992).
321
48 On the Palestinian side, our Keynote Speaker is the Honorable Ziad Abu-Zayyad, the Minister
of State
49 for Jerusalem Affairs in …..
Concerning impression management forms, it can be noticed that the moderators make
extensive use of the assertive strategies of ingratiation, i.e. mainly one subtype of this strategy
other-enhancing communication3. This strategy is meant to build confidence and to confer authority
to the negotiators’ opinions , arguments and proposals in the eyes of the opposing party. In a way,
even from the beginning the participants are made aware of the others status, prestige and expertise
in the issues that are to be negotiated.
Thus, in the opening stage of our transcript moderators use an elaborate style with
adjectives like ‘emeritus’, ‘honourable’, ‘extensive’, ‘distinguished’, characteristic of formal
meetings in which speeches are usually carefully planned in advance.
Another characteristic of this part is the fact that group membership is very much stressed in
the introductory part with a view to expressing legitimacy and expertise of the participants.
The opening stage frames the entire event as a highly formal meeting, establishes the roles
of the participants and the way their contribution to the meeting is made.
The moves in the opening stage are made out mainly by assertive speech acts and usage
declaratives.4
The moderators organize their discourse carefully projecting forward the next steps and
using for this monitoring devices (M. Stubbs, 1983) such as: ‘first’, ‘next’, ‘ let me just say’, ‘let me
just introduce’ and performative verbs (alone or accompanied by modals) ‘I want’ .”I would like to”
in order to signal what they are going to do next.
16-22Ms De Lee: I want to stress to you that the comments that are made today are not
necessarily the views of Americans for Peace Now. We are not holding this conference to put forth one
position, but we are doing it to provide an open and positive dialogue ….
During the other stages of the negotiation, mostly defensive forms of impression
management are encountered. Each speaker uses accounts in the form of justifications as arguments
supporting their statements about the refugee issue.
In our corpus the key speakers’ proposals are formulated in a more cooperative tone than
their first interventions. The panelists use almost entirely a cooperative style.
Standpoints and proposals made by panelists are mostly conveyed indirectly and with a use
of tentative language, with modals, clarifications and injunctions seeking opinion conformity.
The use of facts and numerous examples as backings (Toulmin, ) of arguments are also
meant to justify their presentation as experts in the Middle East issues.
An interesting form which appears in both transcripts is the use of reformulations which we
believe can be included in the assertive forms of impression management. Reformulations,
although are not mentioned in the literature as impression management forms may fulfil this aim in
negotiation . Reformulations introduce proposals and at the same time because of their indirectness
they do not threaten the face of the speaker or of the other negotiator.
Sentence adverbials and adverbial phrases like ‘Psychologically speaking’ or ‘obviously’ ,
‘clearly’, ‘directly’, ‘really ‘ ‘entirely’ are frequent because if standpoints or proposals can be
indirectly conveyed, negotiators seem to consider that arguments mainly have to be well and clearly
understood.
3
Jones and Wortman (1973)m quoted in Tedeschi and Melburg have demonstrated in laboratory experiments
four basic kinds of ingratiation : sel-enhancing communications, other-enhancing communications, opinion conformity
and favour-doing.
4
Usage declaratives have the role of managing conversation, and not of advancing argumentation (van Eeemeren et
al.,1994)
322
Most of the assertive utterances contain verbs in the conditional mood: e.g ‘compensation
should be mostly geared’, ‘we should be forward looking’; “I would only say’, etc.
Standpoints are also introduced by means of hypothetical constructions in which sometimes
modals are also present (used epistemically or circumstantially – ac Kratzer, 1991) . Hypothetical
constructions convey a sense of modality (Palmer, 1986) which is reinforced if they are
accompanied by modals.
The proposal is supported by arguments formulated as if-clauses.
All these elements show a higher degree of flexibility and willingness to cooperate than in
the first part of the meeting.
The Romanian Transcript
The opening stage has a first move that contains only greetings and the announcement of the
agenda. No small talk occurs.
This stage, however, is very important in the transcript because the participants exhibit a
strong disagreement concerning the agenda. Unlike in the English, where the agenda and the issue
were introduced smoothly, here the participants try to impose their own order of issues. In
negotiation delimiting the issue may strengthen the discussant’s position. The Union representative
(U) imposes a certain topic and he will be the one to take the leading part in the next stage, the
bargaining argumentative one.
3-9 : M: Deci, am stability cum se negociază şi cum se stabileşte , prin ce… de fapt ce cuprinde
salariul de bază.
U: Cum ce cuprinde ..?
M : Nu aţi înţeles. Am greşit. Acum trebuie să ne referim la adaosuri, şi sporuri la salariu.
U: Nu, nu, nu. Îmi permiteţi să vă spun , mai întâi stabilim salariul şi după aceea să ne referim la
clauză. Că dacă eu adaug la salariu înseamnă …..
At the begining of the negotiations , the parties try to clarify the first issue. The union
representative rejects the management’s proposal( M) in a straightforward manner:
6-7 :B…Acuma trebuie să ne referim la adaosuri şi sporuri la salar.
After a series of clarifications and repairs that manage to improve the union’s control upon
the ongoing process, the agenda is finally accepted by the union representatives:
8-16 :A : Nu,nu,nu… mai întâi trebuie să stabilim salariul şi după aceea să ne referim la clauze. Că
dacă eu adaug la salariu înseamna…
B Să revenim la teorie …. Ca teorie …
U: Dati-mi voie, încă o dată să vă spun , nu discutăm pentru că înainte de a face… teorie …
indiferent ce fac , inainte eu trebuie să stabilesc salariul. După ce am definit salariul, încep să definesc şi
termenul ….ce înseamnă adaos…
The bargaining-argumentative stage is closely intertvowen with the confrontation stage and
the Union’s arguments tend to be more numerous. At the same time, numerous arguments
accompany proposals. In the Romanian transcripts proposals are sometimes abruptly introduced
without a prior sequence of standpoint + argumentation.
The arguments most frequently encountered in this corpus are the argument of division,
definitions, comparisons, the argument of inclusion, statistics and similarity, the argument of
authority, the argument of direction, arguments based on causal reasoning.
323
These arguments were used to support the standpoints and proposals made by the
negotiating parties and to delimit the agreement zone within which concessionary moves are
possible.
The rejection of proposals is often formulated as a threat like in the following line:
188-189: U: ..Daţi-mivoie să-l întreb pe domnu Scurtu dacă are curajul să meargă cu mine să
propunem acest salariu la muncitorii din grevă.
Another argument in favour of the rejection of the proposal is that with small wages,
metallurgy will be finally destroyed.The union representative uses here the argument of direction,
which acc. to Perelman (1958/2000) is typical for these argumentative situations. This argument is
formulated again as a threat:
193-202 : M : Domnu… Perfect. Eu vă spun un singur lucru, dacă vreţi să înmormântăm metalurgia
românească mergem în direcţia asta.
The Management’s attempt to disregard the stipulations of the contract triggers another
threat from the Union representative, this time expressed in a straightforward manner:
231-233: M: Atunci daţi-mi voie să vă spun că în momentul acesta nu mai avem ce negocia pentru că
noi negociem după contractul de anul trecut, şi dacă acest contract e valabil în totalitate, e normal ca fiecare
din punctele sale să fie valabil.
Threats are forms of assertive behaviour and in the case of negotiation they are used by
strong tough negotiators with a competitive style focused on wining at all costs. They signal strong
positions and commitments.
Besides threats, the other speech acts used in the Romanian transcript are defensive in
nature : reformulations, repairs, clarifications.
The key points for initiating decisions that may lead to compromise are those in which the
negotiators use reformulation. They are resolution-implicative and are used as devices for initiating
concessionary activity, thereby providing an opportunity for the two sides to reach an agreement"
(Walker ,1995: 102)
Through the reformulation of prior talk, a suggestion or a proposal is seen as a request and
consequently is treated differently in the unfolding of a negotiation. If an action is identified as a
proposal, it may provide an opportunity for an exchange of concessions but it is not in itself a
concession, whereas for a request this interpretation is permissible. Reformulations may be regarded
as indirect proposals and therefore their rejection may bring about less loss of face and
embarrassment for the negotiators.
Reformulations make an indirect offer by identifying a concession, which will make the
other negotiating party’s position more acceptable. This party in its turn can accept or reject that
indirectly proposed concession by confirming or disconfirming the reformulation. In this way,"
formulations generate the negotiation of concessions and not the collaborative inspection of the
sense of prior talk" (Walker, 1995 :133)
For Walker (1995) the explanation that formulations are mitigating features associated with
external factors, such as politeness and relative power does not seem to be valid, instead she
considers that formulations are used to actually accomplish interactive negotiating activities. In our
transcript formulations are more frequent in the second round when the indexation issue is
discussed. They are important in the process of negotiation. We have found that these formulations
have the role to initiate the bargaining stage proper and to help the negotiators advance towards a
decision.
324
In our transcripts, repairs and self-corrections seem to have the same function as
reformulations, namely to introduce proposals, minimizing the threats to the face of negotiators.
They may be included in the category of defensive forms of communication and are specific to the
collaborative rather than competitive style in negotiation.
Collaborative style differs from the competitive style mainly in the attitude of the
participants, since collaborative negotiators are not-self- centered, but act in a way as to benefit the
agents as a group (Patterson, 1996, Chu-Carroll, 2000,). Thus, when facing a conflict, a
collaborative negotiator should not automatically reject a belief with which he/she does not agree;
instead, the negotiator evaluates the belief and the evidence provided to him/her and adopts the
belief, which is in the end convincing. On the other hand, if the evaluation indicates that the
negotiator should maintain the initial position, he/she should attempt to provide sufficient
justification to convince the other negotiator to adopt this belief if the belief is relevant to the task at
hand.
In the Romanian transcript, the negotiating parties seem to have equal positions. The turn taking is not restricted, the speakers frequently interrupt each other and numerous overlapping of
speech occurs. However, the union representatives are the ones who have longer turns and who
strive to keep their turns and do not generally yield to interruptions or overlapping. They are
seeking to impose their views and arguments and at least in one of the point - the indexation of
wages they are successful, as their concession is smaller.
Although the negotiators know each other, the confrontational style persists and only the
management representatives try once or twice to change the encounter into a more collaborative
one. The use of the pronoun "we" is relevant in this respect. Most of the time both parties use this
pronoun with a restrictive meaning, including the members of one group, only. However,
management tries once to use the inclusive "we" but the union representatives do not accept this.
4.Conclusions
Both transcripts exhibit instances of defensive and assertive behaviour forms. However,
defensive strategies are more frequent and this is due to the fact that negotiation basically aims at
solving conflicting issues and parties have to defend their own positions and interests. Assertive
forms of behaviour (ingratiation or threats) seem to be more frequent in competitive styles of
negotiations where the participants show stronger commitment and less willingness to compromise.
Defensive forms are specific for the cooperative style.
It has also been noticed from our transcripts a preference for the defensive forms in the
confrontation phase ,whereas assertive forms are more frequent in the opening stage and at the end
of the bargaining phase if a settlement can be reached.
Following our analyses we may conclude that the list of defensive forms of impression
management can be enlarged with another form: the reformulation.
Although the two transcripts analyzed differ in many respects (e.g. the English transcript is
an instance of a formal diplomatic negotiation, whereas the Romanian transcript illustrates labourmanagement negotiations and is rather informal, more spontaneous) the overall structure is similar.
Many differences between the two are due to the difference in style and not in
argumentation patterns. The English corpus shows a preference for a cooperative style whereas the
Romanian style is rather competitive.
Although style alone cannot determine the outcome of a negotiation, it can address one of
the two dimensions of the negotiation process, namely the keeping up of relations. A good lasting
relationship and a discussion –minded attitude determines the continuation of the negotiation
process, which eventually ends in the settlement of the disagreement.
325
References
BUELLOW-MUELLER, A. Non-native speakers as negotiators in Crossing BordersCommunication between cultures and companies, Halden/Norway , p.145-157, 2001
BUELLOW-MUELLER, A. Image Restauration with New Technology Paper presented at the
International Conference Rhetoric in Society , Alborg, Denmark, 2006
CHU-CARROLL J, Carberry S. Response Generation in Collaborative negotiation Univ. of
Delaware Newak (2000)
DREW, P and Herritage ,J (ed.) Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings. CUP, 1992
van Eemeren, H. Grootendorst, R. (ed.) Studies in Pragma-Dialectics Sic Sar International Centre
for the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam, 1994
VAN Eemeren, H. Grootendorst, R. (2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The PragmaDialectical Approach. Cambridge University press, 2004
FIRTH, A. ‘Accounts’ in negotiation discourse :a single case analysis. Journal of Pragmatics
23(1995) p.199- 226 ,1995
FIRTH, A. (ed.) The Discourse of Negotiation. Studies of Language in the Workplace Pergamon
London, 1995
GIBBONS, P. The Role of Language in Negotiation: Threats and Promises. in Putnam, L., Roloff,
M. (ed.) Communication and Negotiation. Sage Publications p. 156-175
GOODIN, R., Brennan, G. Bargaining over Beliefs, Ethics, Jan. 2001, VIII, 12 Info Trac Web :
British Council Journals Database, 2001
JABLIN, F.M. &Putnam, L. Organizational Communication. Advances in Theory, Research and
Methods Sage Publications Inc., 2001
KEOGH, C. Bargaining Arguments and Argumentative Bargainers. in Putnam, L., Roloff, M. (ed.)
Communication and Negotiation. Sage Publications p. 109-127, 1992
KINNEAVY, J.(1971) A Theory of Discourse- Aims of Discourse. Englewood Cliffs ,New York
Prentice Hall
MULHOLLAND, J. The Language of Negotiation.A Handbook of Practical Strategies for
Improving Communication. Routledge London
PERELMANN,C ,Olbrechts-Tyteca,L. Traite de l'Argumentation Editions de l'Univeriste de
Bruxelles , 2000
SUPERCEANU, R The Rhetoric Scientific Articles. Ed. Orizonturi Universitare Timisoara (1998)
Swales, J.M Genre Analysis . English in academic and research settings CUP,1998
TEDESCHI ,J. and Melburg, V. Impression Management in Organizations ,Routlege, London 1984
THUDEROZ, C. (2002) Negocierile. Eseu de sociologie despre liantul social. Stiinta Chisineu
(translated from French into Romanian)
TOULMIN, S (1958) Uses of Argument CUP
WALTON, D.(1998) The New Dialectic. Conversational Contexts of Argument. University of
Toronto Press.
326