Content uploaded by Loredana Marcela Trancă
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Loredana Marcela Trancă on May 07, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
69
THE IMPORTANCE OF POSITIVE LANGUAGE FOR THE
QUALITY OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
L. M. Tranc, A. Neagoe
Loredana Marcela TRANCA,
Lecturer, PhD,
The West University of Timioara
Alexandru NEAGOE
Associate Professor, PhD,
The West University of Timioara
Words know about us things we don’t
know about them (Salome, 2002)
Abstract. The present paper aims to explore and highlight
the importance of positive language for the quality of
interpersonal relationships, as stated in the specialised
literature. The analysis is particularly relevant to
practitioners working in helping professions. We underline
both the significance of the power of words, grounded in
their capacity to do harm or good, we describe the features
of positive communication and identify solutions for a
positive communications to increase the quality of
interpersonal relations.
Key words: communication, positive language,
interpersonal relationships
Introduction
The academic interest regarding the connection between language and
the quality of human relationships springs from the fact that we live in a
network of social relationships which are based on the complex, diverse and
70
dynamic interaction between individuals. Communication is fundamental for
human interaction and is considered as one of the key factors in the
development of a relationship (Finne and Grönroos, 2009; Dagger, David and
Ng, 2011; Gavril-Ardelean, M. and Gavril-Ardelean, L., 2016).
Although the research in the area of verbal communication, as well as
that of interpersonal relationships, has a long history, beginning with the 1980’s,
the specialised findings in the fields of psychology, behavioural sciences, social
sciences have specifically highlighted and confirmed the importance of human
communication for interpersonal relationships. The important role of positive
language has been demonstrated for all human relationships – within the family,
professional environment, personal friendships, etc.
For the sake of clarity, we will begin to address our chosen subject by
focusing on the main concepts in question.
Positive communication and good quality relationships
One of the most influential descriptions of communication in world
literature is that of the ancient book of Proverbs (incorporated into the Jewish
and Christian biblical canon). The book makes use of a number of terms which
are particularly significant in describing communication: lips, mouth, speech,
tongue, and word. Thus: ”The words of the reckless pierce like swords, but the
tongue of the wise brings healing. Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying
tongue lasts only a moment” (Proverbs 12:18-19);
1
”Anxiety weighs down the
heart, but a kind word cheers it up” (Proverbs 12:25); ”The soothing tongue is a
tree of life, but a perverse tongue crushes the spirit” (Proverbs 15:4); ” Those
who guard their mouths and their tongues keep themselves from calamity
(Proverbs 21:23).
Moving to recent scholarship, a particularly detailed definition of
positive communication is that of O. A. Lentovich (2014), who describes it first
of all as being characterised by certainty, acceptance, agreement or permission –
it is associated with conviction, trust, assurance, gratitude, doubtlessness,
precision, approval; secondly, it is regarded as having a positive, praiseworthy,
favourable, and beneficial outcome; thirdly, it is said to express support,
enthusiasm, peace, optimism, energy, help, and strength; fourthly, it shows
progress or improvement, leading to development, movement in a beneficial
and promising direction, it is full of hope and optimism; fifthly, it is efficient,
1
All biblical quotations are taken from the New International Version.
71
useful, productive, pragmatic, constructive, and practical, rather than
theoretical.
When seeking to define good quality human relationships, Fincham and
Rogge (2010) point out to a lack of consensus among specialists and mention
the wide variety of definitions in specialised literature. Thus, Hassebrauck and
Fehr (2002) suggest a number of related terms, such as: satisfaction,
adjustment, success, happiness, company, and functionality. Also, Fletcher,
Simpson and Thomas (2000) have identified six distinct constructs which have
often been used to describe good quality relationships: satisfaction (Hendrick,
1988), commitment (Adams and Jones, 1997), trust (Holmes i Boon, 1990),
closeness and intimacy (Aron, Aron and Smollan, 1992), passion (Aron and
Westbay, 1996) and love (Fehr and Russell, 1991).
A clear majority of specialists around the world agree that positive
relationships are closely connected with good quality interpersonal
relationships. Harper, Wiens and Matarazzo (1978) have highlighted the role of
communication in social interactions, arguing that the (verbal and non-verbal)
communication abilities are essential in the construction of social relationships.
Montgomery (1988) sees communication as the means whereby good quality
relationships are maintained or even as the relationship itself (in its visible
form), so that the quality of human relationship is clearly defined by the nature
of communication.
At family level, more and more studies show that positive
communication is at the heart of interpersonal relationships. Ritchie and
Fitzpatrick (1990) argue that long term harmony in family life is associated
with positive communication, while negative communication is strongly
associated with poor couple relationship (Arcury, 2013). Good communication
is essential in a key element of functional families, while most family conflicts
are deeply rooted in the communication difficulties among family members
(Neagoe, 2007; Tranc and Runcan, 2013). Wiley (2006) argues that a strong
couple relationship requires efficient communication, good communication
skills, and adequate conflict management. Also, according to a study by Barnett
and Rivers (1996), the respondents agreed that the quality of their relationship
with their partners was crucial for their emotional connection, which, in turn,
was defined as „a partner who truly speaks to you, who is a good listener, who
is a good friend, who cares about you and appreciates you as a person, who
does his or her part so that the relationship works”.
Referring to professional relationships, numerous authors claim that
communication is at the centre of relationships (Fairhurst, 2016; Fairhurst and
Uhl-Bien, 2012; Uhl-Bien, 2006). West and Turner (2006) believe that
interpersonal communication helps people establish and improve their
relationships at work. Fairhurst and Chandler have demonstrated that the
72
relationship between employees and their supervisors is built along the lines of
their routine conversation. Thus, high quality relationships are characterised by
communication in which employers and supervisors minimise the power
distance between them, making use of communication patterns such as personal
conversation, value convergence, informal problem-solving, while poor quality
relationships are characterised by communication which stresses the power gap,
close monitoring of performances, threats, and competition (Fairhurst and
Chandler, 1989; Sias, 2009).
In a similar vein, Tabler, Scammon, Kim, Farrell, Tomoaia-Costisel, and
Magill (2014) show that the adequate response to other people’s emotions, as
well as good management of uncertainties and the encouragement of personal
trust are critical aspects of interpersonal communication between medical staff
and their patients. From the patients’ point of view, it is particularly important
that they have the sense of being adequately heard and understood. High quality
communication between staff and patients is closely related to the continuity
factor in long term care. Similar findings are also highlighted by the research
which has been conducted by Ha, Anat and Longnecker (2010), who show that
the key factor of good relationships between medical doctors and their patients
is efficient communication – it is the art and the heart of medicine!
The Power of Words
Given the fundamental role of words for interpersonal relationships, we
shall try to create a picture of the power of words (to help or to harm), based on
specialised literature. There are many popular sayings which tend to minimise
the power of words, such as: deeds speak louder than words; an image is worth
a thousand words, etc. Responding to this popular perception, we will try to
show that words are capable to exercise an incredible power.
When referring to the power of words, we are referring to the
transformations which our words can produce – at the level of cognition,
feelings, attitudes and behaviours – in those with whom we interact.
Extant research on family relationships shows that families who practice
a predominantly positive communication are less likely to develop behavioural
problems, while these problems are much more likely to occur in families
where negative communication prevails (Xiao, Li and Stanton, 2011). The
communication patterns among partners are constantly linked to the quality of
their relationship (Guerrero, Anderson and Afifi, 2011). Also, Gottman (1994)
has identified four negative communication patterns, namely: criticism,
defensiveness, disregard and blockages. These are regarded as the main
problems which function as barriers to conflict resolution and are seen as
capable to harm a relationship. Criticism attacks the other person’s personality
and devalues the relationship. Defensiveness implies the refusal of admitting
73
one’s responsibility for a certain action by placing the blame on the other.
Disregard for the other shows the lack of respect and may include insults,
inappropriate jokes or sarcasm towards the other person. Blockages in
communication indicate an emotional fracture among the partners, so that when
they speak they have the feeling that they are not heard because the other
partner is proud, hostile, cold or uninterested. These patterns are particularly
harmful when they are regular, mutual and insufficiently balanced by positive
behavior.
The psychologists Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley (1995) have identified
a close connection between the communication with the children during their
first years of life and the children’s later academic performance. Two different
types of communication have been identified, with contrasting effects on the
children: one type, leading to poor academic development, uses very few words
and includes a lot of interdictions and negative messages; the other, stimulating
good academic development, uses a rich vocabulary and positive messages.
Key characteristics of positive communication
Scholarly literature in the field affords us the possibility to single out a
number of characteristics of positive communication.
For Socha and Pitts (2012), positive communication includes those
messages which stimulate hedonic happiness (e.g. positive influences, positive
feelings) and eudemonic happiness (e.g. self-efficiency, mutual support,
positive character traits, ethics).
According to Lentovich (2014), positive communication is a complex
set of several variables, which, if combined in a live interaction, will produce a
new quality of relationships. This may be defined as an interaction which is
based on positive feelings, with regard to the mutual and satisfactory
understanding of all parts. Thus, the components of positive communication
include: positive intentionality, initiative, adaptation, empathetic listening, and
social support.
Based on Cameron’s research (2008), positive communication generates
information exchange, interpersonal interaction and positive feelings, which
enhance the connectedness within organisations.
Hamel (2005) describes positive communication as the lack of conflict
in relationships and includes: words of appreciation and praise, compliments,
encouragements, support and the expression of empathy.
Concluding remarks
Even a cursory investigation of the possibility that words can be used in
order to improve a relationship is sufficient to validate the observation that
74
positive language is not a eutopia. To be sure, positive language and positive
communication are not a panacea or a magic potion for interpersonal problems.
Nor should they be regarded as a replacement of positive interaction within
relationships. Instead, they should be seen as an augmentation of such
communication, which sees positive messages as a deliberate investment into
the potential of developing the personal strengths of all those who take part in a
relationship (Gavril-Ardelean, M., 2015).
Alain Bosquet (as quoted by Salome, 2002) writes that ”before being put
into words, a statement, like a mammalian, must develop within a womb, where
it receives the right of having a meaning, a sound, an origin”. Thus, the
thoughtful selection of words, before they are spoken, can undoubtedly have a
major role in avoiding dysfunctional relationships and enhancing the quality of
human interaction.
Within the context of helping professions, the practitioner offers
information, support, and direction. The positive use of language is therefore
essential. The way in which the practitioner uses her words, voice, gestures,
facial expressions or visual contact can profoundly determine the quality of the
service. In line with extant scholarship, which has been analysed in this paper,
our conclusion is that positive language is a key element in the development of
interpersonal relationships in general and in the practice of helping
professionals in particular.
References
Adams, J. M., Jones, W. H. (1997). The conceptualization of marital
commitment: An integrative analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 1177- 1196. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.72.5.1177.
Arcury, A. (2013). Dyadic perfectionism, communication patterns and
relationship quality in couples. Electronic Theses and Dissertations
http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgiarticle=5939&context
=etd.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale
and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.63.4.596
Aron, A., Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the prototype of love. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 535-551. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.70.3.535
Babonea, A., Munteanu, A (2012). Towards positive interpersonal relationships
in the Classroom. International Conference of Scientific Paper Afases
75
2012 Brasov,24-26 May 2012. http://www.afahc.ro/ro/ afases/
2012/ socio/2.2/Babonea%20Munteanu.pdf
Barnett, R.C., C. Rivers. (1996). She works/he works: How two-income families
are happier, healthier, and better-off. New York: HarperCollins
Publishers, Inc.
Cameron, K. (2008). Positive Leadership: Strategies for Extraordinary
Performance.San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.
Dagger, T. S., David, M. E., Ng, S. (2011). Do relationship benefits and
maintenance drive commitment and loyalty? Journal of services
marketing, 25(4), 273-281.
Fairhurst, G.T. (2016). Reflections on leadership and ethics in complex
times. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 24(1), 61-69.
Fairhurst, G.T., Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Organizational discourse analysis (ODA):
Examining leadership as a relational process. Leadership Quarterly, 23,
1043-1062.
Fehr, B., Russell, J.A. (1991). The concept of love viewed from a prototype
perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 425-438.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.425.
Fincham, F. D., Rogge, R. (2010). Understanding Relationship Quality:
Theoretical Challenges and New Tools for Assessment. Journal of
family Theory & Review, 2, 227- 242. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-
2589.2010.00059.x.
Finne, Å., Grönroos, C. (2009). Rethinking marketing communication: From
integrated marketing communication to relationship communication.
Journal of Marketing Communications, 15(2/3), 179-195.
doi:10.1080/13527260902757654.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G. (2000) The measurement of
perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor
analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
26, 340-354. doi:10.1177/0146167200265007.
Gavril-Ardelean, M., Gavril-Ardelean, L. (2016), The Amelioration of
Socialization through Communication, for Children in Family Homes,
European Proceeding of Social and Behavioural Sciences, EpSBS,
Future Academy EduWorld 2016.
Gavril-Ardelean, M., coord. (2015), Development of cultural expression skills
of youngs, Editura coala Ardelean, Cluj/ EIKON, Bucureti.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce?: The relationship between
marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guerrero, L., Anderson, P., Afifi, W. (2011) Close Encounters:
Communications in Relationships. California: SAGE Publications.
76
Ha,J.F, Anat, D.S., Longnecker, N. (2010) Doctor-Patient Communication: A
Review.The Ochnsner Journal. 10(1): 38–43. https://www. Ncbi. Nlm .
Nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096184/
Hamel, J. (2005) Gender inclusive treatement of intimate partener abuse: a
comprehensive approach. New York: Springer publishing Company,
Inc.
Hamre, B.K., Pianta R.C. (2006) Student–Teacher Relationships. In: Bear GC,
Minke KM, editors. Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and
intervention. National Association of School Psychologists;
Washington, DC, pp. 59–71. http://www.pearweb.org/conferences/
sixth/pdfs/NAS-CBIII-05-1001-005-hamre%20&%20Pianta%20
proof.pdf
Harper RG, Wiens AN, Matarazzo JD (1978) Nonverbal communication: The
state of the art. New York: Wiley.
Hart, B., Risley, T.R. (1995) Meaningful difference in the everyday
experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing.
Hassebrauck, M., Fehr, B. (2002). Dimensions of relationship quality. Personal
Relationships, 9, 253-270. doi: 10.1111/1475-6811.00017
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal
of Marriage & the Family, 50, 93-98. doi:10.2307/352430
Holmes, J. G., Boon, S. D. (1990). Developments in the field of close
relationships: Creating foundations for intervention strategies.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Special Issue: Illustrating
the Value of Basic Research, 16, 23-41. doi:10.1177/
0146167290161003
Montgomery, B. M. (1988). Quality communication in personal
relationships. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal
relationships (pp. 343-359). New York: Wiley
Lentovich, O. A (2014) Positive Communication: Definition and
Constituent Features. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2014.
5.16
Neagoe, A. (2007). Asistenаa socială a familiei: o abordare sistemică.
Timioara: Editura Universitii de Vest din Timioara.
Ritchie, L., Fitzpatrick, M. (1990). Family communication patterns
measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships.
Communication Research, 17 (4), 523–544.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 009365090017004007
Salome, J. (2002) Dacă m-aЮ asculta, m-aЮ înаelege. Bucureti: Curtea Veche
Pub.
77
Sias, P. (2009) Organizing relationships: traditional and emerging perspectives
on workplace relationships. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Socha, T.J., Pitts, M.J. (2012). Positive interpersonal communication as child's
play.In T.J.Socha and M.J.Pitts (Eds.), The positive side of interpersonal
communication (pp. 523–524). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Tranc, L.M., Runcan, P.L. (2013) Communication and Conflict in Workaholic
Families. In Social Work Review, 2. Iai: Editura Polirom.
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/communication-and-conflict-in-
workaholic-families_Content%20File-PDF%20(2).pdf
Tabler, J., Scammon, D., Kim, J., Farrell, T., Tomoaia-Costisel, A., Magill, M.
(2014) Patient care experiences and perceptions of the relationship: A
mixed method study. Patient Experience Journal .Volume 1, Issue 1 -
April 2014, pp. 75-87.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social
processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17,
654-676.
West, R., Turner, L. (2006) Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and
Application. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Wiley, A.R. (2007) Connecting as a couple: Communication skills for
healthy relationships. The Forum for Family and Consumer
Issues, 12 (1). http://ncsu.edu/ffci/publications/2007/v12-n1-2007-
spring/index-v12- n1-may-2007.php
Xiao, Z., Li, X., Stanton, B. (2011) Perceptions of parent-adolescent
communication within families: It is a matter of perspective.
Psychology, Health & Medicine, 16(1), 53-65.
