Language and Occupation

A person's language can differ depending on what social group they're in, and a person can be in many social groups simultaneously. Something that determines one of these social groups is the work a person does, their occupation. Occupational groups are often classified as discourse communities and each has its own sets of rules and trends for language use.

In this Language and Occupation article, we will look at what a discourse community is, what occupational language is, the pros and cons of occupational language in society, and different linguistic theories surrounding occupational language.

A group of lawyers or business people would be considered an occupational group.

Discourse community definition

In its most basic sense, a discourse community is a group of people who share interests, beliefs, assumptions, and the language used to discuss these things. It is easier to understand this if we know what discourse means.

From this definition, we can say that a discourse community is a group of people whose communication is based on shared topics and interests. If a social group is described as a discourse community, they will have a specific way of communicating within that group that is different from how they would in another social group. Their communication may be specific in areas such as conversational rules, grammar, and lexis.

Occupational language definition

Occupational language refers to the way people speak within their occupational group. This includes all of the rules and topics that apply to the conversations commonly had in the workplace. Each occupational group will have a different occupational language because of their different professions.

The main distinguishing factor of occupational language is that it often isn't language used in every day (casual) conversation. This means that many items of occupational lexis will be considered jargon and won't be commonly known or understood by laymen (someone without specialist knowledge of a particular subject).

Within an occupational group, there is often a specific semantic field - a selection of words that all relate to a single topic.

It is also possible though for different occupational groups to overlap, such as the groups 'nursing' and 'GP practitioner,' which would most likely share a semantic field. These two groups would be able to communicate with each other while still retaining their use of occupational language, but they will also have some differences in the way they communicate within their occupational groups. This could be in the way they address each other (such as GPs addressing each other as 'doctor' and nurses addressing each other as 'nurse'), or in the formality of their conversations (GP practitioners usually communicate with each other in front of the general public so may be more formal in their workplace talk).

Occupational language examples

As always, it's helpful to consolidate our knowledge with some examples, so here we go!

Each profession will have its own lexical field and specialised language.

Language and occupational groups

In any setting, it is important to have clear and effective communication. In the workplace, this is achieved through the use of occupational language. Generally, everyone in the workplace will share the same knowledge of their occupational language and so using it will allow for clear and concise instruction or communication whenever needed. This makes for an effective working environment, allowing people to work together like a well-oiled machine.

A person may also use occupational language to their advantage, using specific words to show their intelligence. This could be done simply to feel as clever as their peers, or it could be done to exert power. If someone uses a lot of occupational lexis, they may give the impression of knowing more than their peers. In a similar way, occupational language can be used to differentiate people within a social hierarchy in the workplace. For example, the boss is likely to have the most knowledge and therefore use the widest variety of workplace-specific lexis, making it clear that they are someone who can provide knowledge and answers where needed.

Another positive is that it can create a sense of professionalism and integrity in the workplace. This level of professionalism at work can then encourage a better work/life distinction as a person's language use may differ greatly between work and home. This gives them a clear point in the day where they can switch off and communicate with a different social group, such as friends and family, leaving work at work.

Criticisms of occupational language

Although occupational language can be very beneficial to a good workplace environment and work ethic, it can also bring with it some negative consequences. These can be separated into problems faced by the workforce and problems faced by the general public.

A problem faced in the workplace is sometimes encountered when there is a new hire. In this instance, the new member of a team may be either new to the occupation or just unfamiliar with how the new team functions and communicates. This means they won't be familiar with all of the occupational language that goes with it, which can cause someone to feel excluded and unmotivated at work.

If we look at the interaction between professionals and laymen, we encounter another problem. With occupations that require interacting with the general public such as doctors and dentists, it can be hard sometimes for laymen to understand what is meant. Although the general public has the opportunity to ask for a simpler explanation, it can leave them then feeling inferior and unintelligent. This can lead to a very hesitant rapport which can hinder efficiency in reaching the end goal.

This lack of understanding can be a further problem when there's no one around to ask for help. In situations where laymen encounter occupational lexis, it can leave them feeling confused and frustrated. This could happen when having to read and fill out any legal documents which may have confusing wording, or even when following a recipe.

Language and Occupation Theorists

John Swales

In 2011, linguist John Swales researched discourse communities and defined them as having members who:

Share a set of common goals

This applies to language and occupation as people within one discourse community or occupational group will share common goals. These could be generic goals within the workplace such as having a productive day and clear communication, or it could be something more company-specific, such as completing a certain project as a team.

Communicate internally

Within a discourse community, there will be specific ways in which the members communicate. This communication may differ from how they would normally communicate in their social lives. While in everyday social life, people may communicate through speech, texting, social media and any other means available, in the workplace discourse community, it is more likely that specific genres of communication will be favoured over others.

Use specialist lexis and discourse

This relates to what we discussed earlier about semantic fields. Every discourse community will have a semantic field of lexical terms they frequently use in their communication. Swales also states that discourse communities share specialist discourse, meaning there will be specific ways of communicating. In an occupational group, this may be in the way that orders and instructions are given by people with the highest authority.

Posses a required level of knowledge

Swales' final point suggests that someone cannot be a member of a discourse community if they don't have the required knowledge. If discourse communities or occupational groups didn't have shared knowledge among their members, communicating ideas and information would become very difficult and hinder the group's functionality.

Almut Koester

After a study in 2004, Koester said that phatic talk is important in the workplace for getting jobs done.

Koester suggests that being sociable and using banter within an occupational group is key to creating a positive and productive working environment. This encourages members of the group to engage in personal chat and gives a more personable atmosphere, in turn creating a more effective working environment.

Michael Nelson

Linguist Michael Nelson carried out research while at Manchester University into the possibility of the existence of specific business lexis. He compared the corpora of business English with the more generic English corpora and found that business lexis exists. From this research, Nelson concluded that business lexis coincides with a semantic field of business, including categories such as business, people, companies, institutions, money, time and technology. In business lexis, people were found to avoid personal topics, reserving those for when they weren't at work or in the business environment.

Nelson's research also highlighted the topics that weren't a part of business lexis. These included personal and social subjects such as weekends, family, relationships, personal issues, house and home, and personal activities and hobbies.

As a final point, the research also showed a significant lack of negative lexis in business communication. Instead, a lot of the language used in the 'business' occupational group was neutral and used with the main goal of being informative.

Drew and Heritage

In 1992, linguists Drew and Heritage applied conversation analysis to the language used in institutional settings. They came up with the theory of institutional talk, which refers to six characteristics that appear in speech in the workplace or within an occupational group. These characteristics are:

• Goal orientation - People conversing will want to reach the same outcome from their interaction.
• Turn-taking rules - These differ from institutional talk to ordinary conversation as someone may have more power and therefore be allowed to interrupt more often, disregarding ordinary turn-taking conventions.
• Allowable contributions - There are constraints on what someone may contribute in institutional talk. Talking about your weekend plans, for example, may not be an allowable contribution.
• Professional lexis - This is the language specifically used in an institutional setting, such as workplace-specific jargon.
• Structure - Certain interactions in institutional talk may have particular structures that are followed every time, such as a business meeting being led by the highest-ranking person in the room, who then invites people to talk at different intervals.
• Asymmetry - Institutional talk interactions can be one-sided due to one speaker having more power and is, therefore, able to speak for longer without being interrupted.

Speaking about personal matters at work is not an example of occupational language.

Herbert and Straight

When studying language and communication in 1989, Herbert and Straight found a link between compliments and authority. People of higher authority were more likely to give compliments to those of lower authority than the other way round. In workplace settings, this means that compliments are used as a form of praise from someone higher to someone of a lower rank. If the reverse were to happen, the lower-ranking employee may be seen as being condescending or self-important, potentially harming workplace relationships.

Hornyak

In 1994, Hornyak studied the link between language and occupation and found that the shift from work talk to social or personal talk follows a pattern. This pattern is that the shift is always initiated by the highest-ranking person in the room.

If the lower-ranking person in the workplace were to initiate personal chat, they may be viewed as being unfocused and not dedicated to the job.