Family mediator neutrality and impartiality in practice

the relevance of the ‘reflecter’ discourse role

Authors

  • Chris Hill Independent Scholar

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v1.i1.17327

Keywords:

Discourse roles, illocution, mediation, neutrality, reflecter

Abstract

Family mediation is an interactional encounter in which there are three or more participants. In their institutional role, mediators are required to conduct themselves in a manner which is neutral regarding outcome and impartial regarding process. The discourse often includes the needs of absent others, that is the children of the couple. This paper draws on pragmatics and applies the pragmatic of discourse roles and complex illocutionary acts to the language of family mediators and their clients. It focuses on a discourse role which I have termed ‘reflecter’ and its relationship to mediator neutrality and impartiality.

Author Biography

  • Chris Hill, Independent Scholar

    Chris Hill received her PhD in pragmatic linguistics from Bangor University, Wales. She is a qualified practitioner in probation, social work and family mediation and continues to practice as a mediator. She is currently working on a Postdoctoral Fellowship application with Professor Srikant Sarangi, Cardiff University, Wales and has delivered several language workshops, one of which has received continuing professional development accreditation.

References

Attardo, S. (1997) Locutionary and perlocutionary cooperation: the perlocutionary cooperative principle. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 753–779.

Austin, J. L. (1975) How to Do Things with Words (2nd Edition). London: Oxford University Press.

Benjamin, R. D. (2004) Strategies for managing impasse. In J. Folberg, A. L. Milne and P. Salem (eds) Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques and Applications, 248– 279. New York: Guilford Publications.

Boulle, L. and Nesic, M. (2006) Mediation: Principle, Process, Practice. Gateshead: Athenaeum Press.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clayman, S. E. (1992) Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news-interview discourse. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, 163–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

College of Mediators (2008) Code of practice for mediators: 2. Retrieved on 7th October 2010 from http://www.collegeofmediators.co.uk/index.php?option=com

Corsaro, W. A. and Rizzo, T. A. (1990) Disputes in the peer culture of American and Italian nursery-school children. In A. D. Grimshaw (ed.) Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations, 21–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Family Mediation Council (2004) Competence Assessment for Family Mediators: Portfolio Guidelines, Specification and Templates, 28–51. Retrieved on 7th October 2010 from http://www.familymediationcouncil.org.uk/resources/FMC-PORTFOLIO.pdf

Ferrara, K. W. (1994) Therapeutic Ways with Words. New York: Oxford University Press.

Folberg, J., Milne, A. L. and Salem, P. (eds) (2004) Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques and Applications. New York: Guilford Publications.

Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell. Greatbatch, D. (1992) On the management of disagreement between news interviewees. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, 268–301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Greatbatch, D. and Dingwall, R. (1989) Selective facilitation: Some preliminary observations on a strategy used by divorce mediators. Law and Society Review 23: 613–41.

Greatbatch, D. and Dingwall, R. (1998) Talk and identity in divorce mediation. In C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe (eds) Identities in Talk, 121–132. London: Sage.

Greatbatch, D. and Dingwall, R. (1999) Professional neutralism in family mediation. In S. Sarangi and C. Roberts (eds) Talk, Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings, 271–292. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. http://dx.doi. org/10.1515/9783110208375.3.271

Haynes, J. M. and Haynes, G. L. (1989) Mediating Divorce: Casebook of Strategies for Successful Family Negotiations. London: Jossey-Bass.

Heritage, J. and Greatbatch, D. (1991) On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In D. Boden and D. H. Zimmerman (eds) Talk and Social Structure, 93–137. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Johnston, J. R. (1994) High-conflict divorce. Future of Children 4: 165–82.

Kalter, N., Kloner, A., Schreiser, S. and Okla, K. (1989) Predictors of children’s post-divorce adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 59: 605–618.

Kelly, J. B. and Emery, R. E. (2003) Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives. Family Relations 52 (4): 352–362.

Leech, G. N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. Harlow: Longman.

Levinson, S. C. (1981) The essential inadequacies of speech act models of dialogue. In H. Parret, M. Sbisa and J. Verschueren (eds) Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics, 473– 489. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Levinson, S. C. (1985) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, S. C. (1988) Putting linguistics on a proper footing: explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In P. Drew and A. Wooton (eds) Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, 161–227. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Mnookin, R. H. and Kornhauser, L. (1979) Bargaining in the shadow of the law: The case of divorce. Yale Law Journal 88: 950. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/795824

National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (December 1999) Draft Uniform Mediation Act: Section 1(2). Retrieved on 7th October 2010 from http://www. law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/mediat/med1299.htm

Pagels, E. (1995) The Origins of Satan. New York: Random House.

Parkinson, L. (1997) Family Mediation. London: Sweet and Maxwell.

Pomerantz, A. M. (1975) Second Assessments: A Study of Some Features of Agreements/Disagreements (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Irvine: University of California.

Pomerantz, A. M. (1978) Compliment responses: Notes on the cooperation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, 79–112. New York: Academic Press.

Pomerantz, A. M. (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roberts, C. and Sarangi, S. (2005) Theme oriented discourse analysis of medical encounters. Medical Education 39: 632–640.

Roberts, M. (2008) Mediation in Family Disputes: Principles of Practice (Third Edition). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Sarangi, S. (2002) Discourse practitioners as a community of interprofessional practice: Some insights from health communication research. In C. N. Candlin (ed.) Research and Practice in Professional Discourse, 95–135. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Sluga, H. and Stern, D. G. (1999) Cambridge Companion to Wittgenstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thomas, J. (1985) The language of power: Towards a dynamic pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 765–783.

Thomas, J. (1986) Complex illocutionary acts and the analysis of discourse. Lancaster Papers in Linguistics 11: 1–29.

Thomas, J. (1990) Discourse control in confrontational interaction. In L. Hickey (ed.) The Pragmatics of Style, 133–156. London: Routledge.

Thomas, J. (1995) Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Published

2013-08-27

How to Cite

Hill, C. (2013). Family mediator neutrality and impartiality in practice: the relevance of the ‘reflecter’ discourse role. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v1.i1.17327