This investigation explores the linguistic mitigation strategies employed by language supervisors in giving critical feedback to language teachers. The provision of feedback is personal and may be intense as a supervisor needs to meet two goals: clarity in feedback-giving and maintenance of relationships. One way to achieve these goals is through the use of linguistic mitigation, which blunts the harshness of a message. To study language mitigation, post-lesson conferences between four in-service teachers and two supervisors, and between four preservice teachers and two university supervisors were recorded and transcribed. A discourse analysis was then conducted to identify specific linguistic mitigation strategies in supervisory discourse using a taxonomy (Wajnryb, 1994). Results showed that supervisors used a variety of linguistic mitigation strategies that could be classified under three major groups: syntactic, semantic, and indirect mitigation techniques. This extensive use of mitigation strategies showed that the supervisors were aware of the threat posed by their feedback on the teachers’ face and the need to balance clarity and maintenance of personal relationships. The prevalence of mitigation in supervisory discourse also demonstrated that politeness may be an important consideration for teachers to accept feedback. The data also suggested that mitigation may be performing both personal and institutional roles for supervisors. Finally, the study would support the applicability of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) face-saving model in the Philippine context. The implications of this study for supervision and language research were likewise discussed in the conclusion of this paper.
Keywords: Clinical supervision, discourse analysis, Filipino politeness, language mitigation, politeness theoryAdeva, A.B. (2005). Conversation analysis of doctor-patient interactions at the department of family and community medicine, Philippine General Hospital. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 35(1), 41-46.
Akcan, S., & Tatar, S. (2010). An investigation of the nature of feedback given to pre-service English teachers during their practice teaching experience. Teacher Development, 14(2), 153-172.
Anast-May, L., Penick, D., Schroyer, R., & Howell, A. (2011). Teacher conferencing and feedback: Necessary but missing! International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 6(2), 1-7.
Archer, D., Aijmer, K., & Wichmann, A. (2012). Pragmatics: An advanced resource book for students. London: Routledge.
Bailey, K.M. (2009). Language teacher supervision. In A. Burns, & J.C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 269-280). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2008). The grammar book. Singapore: Thompson Learning. Cogan, M.L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Miffin.
Copland, F. (2012). Legitimate talk in feedback conferences. Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 1-20.
Correo, C. (2014). Politeness strategies deployed by Filipinos in asynchronous computer mediated discourse. Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 2(2), 85-134.
Diamond, N.A. (1978). An Analysis of Explicit Evaluative Discourse in Supervisor-Teacher Micro teaching Conferences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Urbana, Illinois: Office of Instructional Resources, University of Illinois.
Feeney, E.J. (2007). Quality feedback: The essential ingredient for teacher success. Clearing House, 80(4), 191-198.
Gebhard, J. (1991). Language teacher supervision Process Concerns. TESOL, 25(4), 738- 734.
Goldsberry, L. (1986). Is clinical supervision practical? In W.J. Smyth (Ed.), Learning about teaching through clinical supervision. London: Falmer Press.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics Vol. 3 (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Harris, S. (2003). Politeness and power: Making and responding to ‘requests’ in institutional settings, Text, 23(1), 27-52.
Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kinnison, L.Q. (2013). Politeness in East Asia. Asian Ethnicity, 14(1), 121-125. doi:10.1080 /14631369.2012.722451.
Mojica, L. (2005). Apology strategies perceived to be appropriate by Filipino-speaking couples. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 35(1), 27-40.
Pawlas, G., & Oliva, P. (2008). Supervision for today’s schools (8th ed.). NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Peccei, J.S. (1999). Pragmatics. UK: Routledge.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1983). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Roberts, J. (1992). Face-threatening acts and politeness theory: Contrasting speeches from supervisory conferences. Journal of Curriculum & Supervision, 7(3), 287-301.
Sergiovanni, T.J, & Starratt, R.J. (1993). Supervision: A redefinition (7th ed.). NY: McGrawHill.
Shiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Smyth, W.J. (1986). Introduction. In W.J. Smyth (Ed.), Learning about teaching though clinical supervision (pp. 1-7). Australia: Croom Helm Australia.
Strauss, S., & Feiz, P. (2014). Discourse analysis: Putting our worlds into words. NY: Routledge.
Strong, M., & Baron, W. (2004). An analysis of mentoring conversations with beginning teachers: Suggestions and responses. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 47-57.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. NY: Longman.
Vasquez, C. (2004). Very carefully managed advice and suggestions in post-conference meetings. Linguistics and Education, 15, 33-58.
Waite, D. (1991). Supervisors’ talk: Conversation analysis and ethnography of supervisory conferences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Wajnryb, R. (1994). The pragmatics of feedback: A study of mitigation in the supervisory discourse of TESOL teacher educators (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Macquarie University, Australia.
Wallace, M. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yeşilbursa, A.A. (2011). Mitigation of suggestions and advice in post-observation conferences between three English language teacher educators. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 7(1), 18-35.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.