Abstract

Rapport orientations are not frequently explored in educational discourse, despite their significant role in enhancing or maintaining relationships between students and teachers, and in avoiding or mitigating embarrassing situations. This paper aims to investigate the rapport orientations of students and teachers based on Spencer-Oatey’s (2008) theory. A descriptive-analytical method was adopted to analyze and interpret the questionnaires from students and teachers in selected rehabilitated schools in Syria. The software MAXQDA was used to comprehensively analyze the data. The results showed that most students had a tendency to be focused on improving their teachers’ viewpoints. The results also show that teachers’ orientations in students’ perspectives tend to be enhancement-focused, although around half of the students do not mind whether their teachers’ rapport orientation is enhancement or neglect/challenge. It is worth noting that some teachers do not prioritize building rapport with their students or are oriented toward neglect or challenge rapport, according to students’ perspectives. Factors such as students’ motivation and satisfaction, personality, and teachers’ awareness of teaching methods are all considered in this study to provide a comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon.

Keyworde: Rapport orientation, educational discourse, student-teacher relationship, motivation, rehabilitated schools

Full Text PDF

Refrences:

1. O’Keeffe A, Clancy B, Adolphs S. Introducing pragmatics in use. Routledge; 2019 Oct 8.
2. Austin JL. How to do things with words. Harvard university press; 1975 Apr 15.
3. Grice HP. Logic and conversation, In Cole, P., and Morgan, J.(Eds.). Syntax & Semantics. 1975;3.
4. Brown P, Levinson SC. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge university press;
1987 Feb 27.
5. Glick DJ. Miriam A. Locher, Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication.
Language in Society. 2006 Nov;35(5):729–33.
6. Spencer-Oatey H. Face, (im)politeness and rapport. Culturally speaking: Culture, communication
and politeness theory. 2008 Jun 24; 2:11–47.
A Pragmatic Analysis of Rapport Orientation Shaban et al.
© STM Journals 2025. All Rights Reserved 61
7. Spencer-Oatey H. (Im)politeness, face, and perceptions of rapport: Unpacking their bases and
interrelationships. J Politeness Res. 2005;1(1):95–119.
8. Locher M. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Mouton de
Gruyter. 2004.
9. Goffman E. Interaction rituals: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Pantheon Books;1967.
10. Watzlawick P, Beavin J. Some formal aspects of communication. Am Behav Sci. 1967
Apr;10(8):4–8.
11. Reski R, Aswad M. The Effect of Interruptions on Rapport Orientation in Formal Meetings.
Eduvelop: J Engl Educ Dev. 2018 Sep 24;2(1):37–47.
12. Djenar DN. 11 Recognitional Reference and Rapport Building in the Author Interview. Z. Goebel,
Rapport and the Discursive Co-Construction of Social Relations in Fieldwork Encounters. 2019
Aug; 19:163–83.
13. Culpeper J, Kan Q. Communicative styles, rapport, and student engagement: An online peer
mentoring scheme. Appl Linguist. 2020 Oct;41(5):756–86.
14. Kádár DZ. Politeness and impoliteness in Chinese discourse. In The Routledge handbook of
Chinese discourse analysis 2019 Jan 14 (pp. 203–215). Routledge.
15. Gibbs GR. Using software in qualitative analysis. Flick U, Scott W, Metzler K, editors. The SAGE
handbook of qualitative data analysis. 2014;281–94.