Critical Analysis of Bargaining

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Linguistics Department, Literature Faculty, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran

2 Linguistics Department, Faculty of Literature and Foreign Languages, Payame Noor University

Abstract

Discourse analysis examines the impacts of human, gender and cultural interactions and social values on discourse, and studies the way these relationships are presented in the text. Hence, in this article, which deals with the phenomenon of bargaining in an Iranian culture, Kermanshah, the approach of critical discourse analysis is used to study the discourse of bargaining regarding the mind control process of the audience. According to Foucault, power has a non-predetermined structure, hence because of its elusive nature, participants in a discourse can play different roles. This research data is gathered utilizing a questionnaire (164) and recording some conversations (850 minutes), in three different social class areas in Kermanshah. The analysis of the data shows that discourse participants use different linguistic mechanisms to reach their goals in bargaining, such as topicalization, short single sentences, exclamatory, imperative and interrogative structures, besides prosodic prominence strategies such as changes in stress, intonation and juncture which can end in shifts in the focus of the information structure of the sentences. However, simple words with ideological connotative meanings have the highest frequency. Moreover, according to the findings, three highlighted behavorial strategies frequent in bargaining include the usage of religious beliefs, having ethnic tradition biases, and stating economic, social, and class problems. The results indicate that the various roles pertaining to the bargaining participants –buyers and sellers- put bargaining in the category of reverse discourse, as Foucault calls it. The seller, in the power hierarchy, is the superordinate through the ownership position, while the buyer is the subordinate. However, in mind controlling, the buyer’s attempt to control the seller secretly makes them the controller, the one who applies power in a bottom-up order. Given that it is impossible to control the seller's mind without persuading them or without changing their worldview, bargaining is categorized as a rhetorical task, and the buyer, in this discourse, is the rhetor.

Keywords

References

Azedanlou, H. 2001. Discourse and Society, 3rd ed., Tehran, Ney publication [in Persian]
Bardhan, S. 2017. Rethorical approaches to communication and culture,
Benoit, W. L. & Benoit, P. J. 2008. Persuasive Messages: The Process of Influence, Oxford, Bleackwell Publications [Persian translation by M. Nikoo & V. SarKisian, 2010]
Compbell, N.C.G. & Graham, J.L. & Meissner, H.G. 1988. Marketing negotiations in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Journal of marketing, 52: 49-62.
De Saussure, L., & Schulz, P. 2005. Introduction, In L. De Saussure & P. Schulz (Eds.), Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century (1-14), Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.436
DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.577
Dreyfus, H. L. & Rabinow, P. 1982. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, Brighton, Harvester Press [Persian translation by H. Bashiriye, 2000]
EbrahimNejad, A. & Shahriari, Sh. 2011. Loss aversion. World of Economics newspaper, 4696. [in Persian]
Faircloueh, N. 2001. Manipulation, In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of sociolinguistics (574-575), Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fazeli, M. 2001. An experimental research on ideology and culture control. Month Book of Social Sciences, 51 & 52: 54-58 [in Persian]
Fazeli, N.  2013. Bargaing and Iranian daily life. Etemad newspaper: 7-20
https://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr/vol30/iss1/4
Hung Ng, S. & Deng, F. 2017. Language and power,
James, N. J. 2018. The application of Foucauldian theoretical frameworks and methodologies to law and legal issues,
Jorgensen, M. & Phillips, L.J. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, London, SAGE Publications L.td [Persian translation by H. Jalili, 2010]
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. 1992. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of risk and uncertainty, 5(4): 297-323.
Lee, D.Y. 2000. Retail bargaining behavior of American and Chinese customers, European journal of marketing, 34: 190-206.
Montazerghaem, M. & Yadegari, M.H. 2016. The presentation of theoretical modal of critical rhetoric reception. Journal of Society Culture Media. 5(18): 9-20 [Persian]
Nasiripour, E. 2011. Michel Foucault Analysis Model in Religious Studies,Qom, Boostane Ketab Publication [in Persian]
Nazari, A.A. 2011. Transition in the concept of power: Foucault and post-Foucauldian analysis. Politic Quarterly, 41(3): 341-358 [Persian]
Osman-Gani, A.A. & Tan, J.S. 2002. Influence of culture on negotiation styles of Asian managers: An empirical study of major culture/ethic groups in Singapore, Thunderbird international business review, 44: 819-839.
Patton, C. & Balakrishnan, P.V.S. 2010. The impact of expectation of future negotiation interaction on bargaining processes and outcomes, Journal of business research, 63: 809-816.
Putthiwanit, C. & Santipiriyapon, S. 2015. Apparel bargaining attitude and bargaining intention (intention to re-bargain) driven by culture of Thai and Chinese consumers, Journal of Community Development and Life Quality, 3 (1): 57-67.
Salehi Zade, A. 2011. An Introducyion to discourse analysis of Michel Foucault; qualitatiove research methods. Ma’rifat-i Farhangi Ejtemaii, 2(3): 113-141 [Persian]
Tung, R. 1984. How to negotiate with Japanese. California management review, 26: 62-77.
Van Dijk, T.A. 1998. Ideoloey: A multidisciplinary approach, London, SAGE.
ــــــــــــــــــ. 2006. Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3): 359–383.
Vivian, B. 2004. Being made strong, New York, New York Press.
Ward, G. 2003. Teach Yourself Postmodernism, Published by McGraw-Hill Companies [Persian translation by A. Morshedizadeh, 2005]
Williams, B. 2004. Truth and truthfulnesss,an essay in genealogy, Princeton: Princeton University Press
Wray, A. 2009. Formulaic Language, In J.L. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, V. 2 (265-271), Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd.
Yarbrough, S.R. 1999. After rhetoric; The study of Discourse beyond language and culture, Illinois, Southern Illinois University Press.
Language Research
Volume 10, Issue 2
March 2020
Pages 171-192

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 26 May 2019
  • Revise Date: 15 November 2019
  • Accept Date: 13 November 2019
  • First Publish Date: 20 February 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics