Talk:Phatic expression

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Anthropology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with Small talk on 28 June 2011. The result of the discussion was Not to merge.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BobLee4, Baileymichaelis, Ntijerina. Peer reviewers: Jmartinez4316, CA108017.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Wow, an article with an adjective for a title that just might have the most appropriate title (although perhaps "phatic utterance" would be more in line with our standards). -- Jmabel 07:42, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. There is an associated noun for phatic, which is phasis. (Source: Chambers Dictionary & Thesaurus 2005.) Perhaps we should use that for the article title and redirect phatic to it. 86.150.131.83 16:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the closely related Small talk (phatic communication) article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this very elderly discussion was not to merge. Euryalus (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just read this article for the first time, prompted by the recent BBC news article on phatic language [1], and I experienced the rare (and unwelcome) situation of being slightly more confused after reading Wikipedia than I had been before doing so! In particular I think the ordering is unhelpful - the Jakobson citation, for instance, seems to define a specific, non-standard usage even before the standard meaning has been fully explored. Would it not be better to merge the whole with Small talk (phatic communication)?. Thanks. CharlesSpencer (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very short on a large subject. It is however very confusing that parts of what obviously belongs in an article called Phatic expression now is written in an article about small talk. The fact that small talk is a kind of phatic communication is also true for light conversation, chat, natter, yak, chit-chat, shoot the breeze , gab and probably several other words. Small talk might be common in use but the term reffered to is phatic and is what you find in for instance: http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=phatic. I would personally not trust information found in an article named Small talk unless the article was concerning itself with the actual meaning of the expression, which is a lot of words that does not really contain much meaning. I do not expect to find sociology or philosophy about why people interact in such a way under the heading small talk. I do however realize that phatic is a difficult term to describe, but isn't using the expression small talk an easy way out of a difficult problem. Phatic confuses me and the article about small talk did not help as it does not describe in any adequate way the theories, philosophies or research. Best regards. Stallo (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be closed, I feel. "Phatic" is preferable to "phasis" because it's more common in English usage. "Small talk" does not mean the same thing as "phatic expression." It's better to use the more precise term to identify this class of linguistic phenomenon.MikeGodwin (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This usage

"In the modern context, this usage appears in online communities and more specifically on micro-blogging" < what usage? The reference isn't clear. Slac speak up! 09:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Along with my group members, Bailee and Bailey, I have the article of phatic expressions and the way that I plan on making contributions to the wiki page is going to be by checking citations and seeing if I can have better resources for the article as well as making sure there isn't any bias within the writings of others on the wiki page. Making sure that if there's anymore information that I can find in the resources that I can use and able to contribute more useful information for the general public to understand phatic expressions better. 19:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

References

These are the references that I am going to use throughout editing the page.

Zimmerman, L. W. (2011). Using Phatic Expressions in Introductions in Intercultural Online Discussions. Journal On English Language Teaching, 1(3), 53-59. Porter, James E. 2017 Professional Communication as Phatic. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, p232949061667170. doi:10.1177/2329490616671708 Radovanovic, Danica and Ragnedda, Massimo Small talk in the Digital Age: Making Sense of Phatic Posts., 2012 . In 2nd Workshop on Making Sense of Microposts, Lyon (France), 16-20 April 2012. [Conference paper] Ntijerina (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntijerina (talk • contribs)