An investigation into the different language use of police officers compared to paramedics during
face-to-face response to an emergency.
The aim of this investigation was to explore the use of language by police officers compared to
paramedics when talking to members of the public. I chose police and paramedics as two widely
exposed occupations to different contexts that depend on communication. Research by Habermas,
Giles(1971) and Goffman(1955) identified two variables of the language used to either ‘threaten’ or
cooperate with the recipient. I focussed on cooperative compared to resistant language utilised by
each occupation to emphasise the variation in symmetry of power. The theories of Labov(1996),
Brown and Levinson (1978) and Fairclough (1989) are also relevant, highlighting the difference in
‘faces’ used by police officers and paramedics.
Methodology
Using the frontline documentaries, ‘Fresh Cops, Rookie Cops, Police: Hour of Duty, 999: What’s your
emergency?’ and ‘Ambulances’ that follow police officers and paramedics on shift, I analysed the
language of Police Officers initialising conversations with victims and criminals compared to
Paramedics talking to patients. First, I counted the frequency of eight language features: imperatives,
discourse markers, hedges, taboo language, exclamations, politeness features, backchannel
behaviour and declaratives.
Following my quantitative research, my qualitative research focussed on the overt and covert
prestige language used. To define ‘polite language’, I categorised four linguistic features consisting of
hedges, apologies and politeness markers and personal address and to define ‘assertive language’ I
categorised declaratives, imperatives, exclamations and taboo language.
My research is from a secondary source that had a set camera crew and, therefore, I needed to allow
for the Observers Paradox (Gale, 2004). I collected a range of data of different ages, genders and
ethnicities.
,Data & Analysis
Figure 1 - Frequency of language features used by Police officers compared to Paramedics.
Interrogatives & Declaratives
The 17 declaratives used by police officers compared to the 31 counts of interrogatives by
paramedics, suggests a difference in conversational ‘faces’. Suggesting contrasting intended
outcomes with members of the public and possibly the use of Face Threatening Acts(FTAs). For
example, paramedics may be more likely to use interrogative language as a Face Saving Act (FSA) to
assert covert prestige. Whereas, police officers may utilise FTA’s to assert overt prestige. However, it
is important to notice that both occupations have a high frequency of interrogative language
suggesting that both employ influential power (Fairclough 1989) when talking to the public. This is
evident in Figures 2 and 3, displaying the high frequency of tag questions used by paramedics
whereas police officers display more direct questions, suggesting an intention to obtain information
by police officers and an attempt to form a conversational tone by paramedics. For example the
informal tone of ‘You alright. You his partner?’ by the paramedics compared to the direct
interrogative ‘Why can’t you open the door?’ by the police officers suggests a more direct attempt at
obtaining information rather than building rapport.
, Imperatives
Police officers appear to use more imperative language to increase the formality and authority. The
difference in the frequency of imperatives between each occupation, is the largest disparity in the
linguistic features I compared, suggesting that police officers are more likely to assert overt prestige
than paramedics. This difference in imperatives used in similar contexts is displayed in Figures 4 and
5.
An informal register is demonstrated by police officers in figure 4. The imperative ‘Right come on out
pal’ is informalised with the common noun ‘pal’ as an attempt to converge with the criminal. This is
similarly reflected in the paramedics' hedged imperative ‘mate just let me come there,’ which is
informalised by the common noun ‘mate’ and implies covert prestige. However, it is clear that the
police officers' rising intonation escalates situations in the exclamation ‘JUST RELAX!’ . Whilst the
mitigated verb ‘just’ acts as a hedge that softens the imperative of ‘relax’, the raised intonation
enforces the imperative tone. On the other hand, Figure 5, demonstrates negotiation, exemplifying
this the paramedic combines an imperative tone of ‘listen to me. Mate seriously’ with ‘My name is
Suki. What’s your name?’. Therefore, it is clear that this convergence implies a sense of control and is
personalised with the proper noun ‘Suki’. These differences in utilization of imperatives further
demonstrates the idea that police officers employ overt prestige to assert authority whereas
paramedics employ covert prestige.
face-to-face response to an emergency.
The aim of this investigation was to explore the use of language by police officers compared to
paramedics when talking to members of the public. I chose police and paramedics as two widely
exposed occupations to different contexts that depend on communication. Research by Habermas,
Giles(1971) and Goffman(1955) identified two variables of the language used to either ‘threaten’ or
cooperate with the recipient. I focussed on cooperative compared to resistant language utilised by
each occupation to emphasise the variation in symmetry of power. The theories of Labov(1996),
Brown and Levinson (1978) and Fairclough (1989) are also relevant, highlighting the difference in
‘faces’ used by police officers and paramedics.
Methodology
Using the frontline documentaries, ‘Fresh Cops, Rookie Cops, Police: Hour of Duty, 999: What’s your
emergency?’ and ‘Ambulances’ that follow police officers and paramedics on shift, I analysed the
language of Police Officers initialising conversations with victims and criminals compared to
Paramedics talking to patients. First, I counted the frequency of eight language features: imperatives,
discourse markers, hedges, taboo language, exclamations, politeness features, backchannel
behaviour and declaratives.
Following my quantitative research, my qualitative research focussed on the overt and covert
prestige language used. To define ‘polite language’, I categorised four linguistic features consisting of
hedges, apologies and politeness markers and personal address and to define ‘assertive language’ I
categorised declaratives, imperatives, exclamations and taboo language.
My research is from a secondary source that had a set camera crew and, therefore, I needed to allow
for the Observers Paradox (Gale, 2004). I collected a range of data of different ages, genders and
ethnicities.
,Data & Analysis
Figure 1 - Frequency of language features used by Police officers compared to Paramedics.
Interrogatives & Declaratives
The 17 declaratives used by police officers compared to the 31 counts of interrogatives by
paramedics, suggests a difference in conversational ‘faces’. Suggesting contrasting intended
outcomes with members of the public and possibly the use of Face Threatening Acts(FTAs). For
example, paramedics may be more likely to use interrogative language as a Face Saving Act (FSA) to
assert covert prestige. Whereas, police officers may utilise FTA’s to assert overt prestige. However, it
is important to notice that both occupations have a high frequency of interrogative language
suggesting that both employ influential power (Fairclough 1989) when talking to the public. This is
evident in Figures 2 and 3, displaying the high frequency of tag questions used by paramedics
whereas police officers display more direct questions, suggesting an intention to obtain information
by police officers and an attempt to form a conversational tone by paramedics. For example the
informal tone of ‘You alright. You his partner?’ by the paramedics compared to the direct
interrogative ‘Why can’t you open the door?’ by the police officers suggests a more direct attempt at
obtaining information rather than building rapport.
, Imperatives
Police officers appear to use more imperative language to increase the formality and authority. The
difference in the frequency of imperatives between each occupation, is the largest disparity in the
linguistic features I compared, suggesting that police officers are more likely to assert overt prestige
than paramedics. This difference in imperatives used in similar contexts is displayed in Figures 4 and
5.
An informal register is demonstrated by police officers in figure 4. The imperative ‘Right come on out
pal’ is informalised with the common noun ‘pal’ as an attempt to converge with the criminal. This is
similarly reflected in the paramedics' hedged imperative ‘mate just let me come there,’ which is
informalised by the common noun ‘mate’ and implies covert prestige. However, it is clear that the
police officers' rising intonation escalates situations in the exclamation ‘JUST RELAX!’ . Whilst the
mitigated verb ‘just’ acts as a hedge that softens the imperative of ‘relax’, the raised intonation
enforces the imperative tone. On the other hand, Figure 5, demonstrates negotiation, exemplifying
this the paramedic combines an imperative tone of ‘listen to me. Mate seriously’ with ‘My name is
Suki. What’s your name?’. Therefore, it is clear that this convergence implies a sense of control and is
personalised with the proper noun ‘Suki’. These differences in utilization of imperatives further
demonstrates the idea that police officers employ overt prestige to assert authority whereas
paramedics employ covert prestige.
