Verbal Expressions of Risk Communication:  A Case Study After the 3.11 Crisis

Shinichiro Okamoto; Toshiko Kikkawa

doi:10.20965/jdr.2014.p0644

single-dr.php

« previous

JDR Vol.9 No.sp pp. 644-652

(2014)

doi: 10.20965/jdr.2014.p0644

Review:

Views over last 60 days: 1,305

Verbal Expressions of Risk Communication: A Case Study After the 3.11 Crisis

Shinichiro Okamoto^* and Toshiko Kikkawa^**

^*Faculty of Psychological and Physiological Science, Aichi Gakuin University, 12 Araike, Iwasaki-cho, Nisshin City, Aichi 470-0195, Japan

^**Faculty of Business and Commerce, Keio University, 2-15-45 Mita, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8345, Japan

Received:

March 2, 2014

Accepted:

June 6, 2014

Published:

September 1, 2014

Keywords:

verbal expressions, implicature, right of involvement, illusions of transparency, Fukushima Nuclear plants

Abstract

This paper explores problems related to verbal expressions of risk communication. In particular, we analyze several problems that arose during the critical situations caused by the accidents at the Fukushima nuclear plants following the Great East Japan Earthquake from pragmatics, linguistic psychological and social psychological perspectives. e focus on verbal expressions with implicatures and expressions incongruent with the sender’s right of involvement, underscoring that these expressions can lead to inferences on the part of the receiver that were intended by the sender and/or to negative images about the sender

Cite this article as:

S. Okamoto and T. Kikkawa, “Verbal Expressions of Risk Communication: A Case Study After the 3.11 Crisis,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.9 No.sp, pp. 644-652, 2014.

Data files:

References

[1] National Research Council, “Improving risk communication,” Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1989.
[2] H. H. Clark, “Using language,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
[3] S. C. Levinson, “Pragmatics,” Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983.
[4] D. Sperber and D.Wilson, “Relevance: Communication and cognition,” (2^nd Ed.) (First Ed., 1986) Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1995.
[5] H. H. Clark and C. R. Marshall, “Definite reference and mutual knowledge,” in A. K. Koshi, B. Webber, and I. A. Sag (Eds.), “Elements of discourse understanding,” pp. 10-63, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981.
[6] S. C. Levinson, “Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature,” Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press, 2000.
[7] S. Okamoto, “Communication and miscommunication,” in S. Okamoto (Ed.), “Miscommunication: Why it occurs, and how to prevent it,” Nakanishiya Publishing, pp. 3-24, 2011.
[8] H. P. Grice, “Logic and conversation,” In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (Eds.), “Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts,” New York, Academic Press, pp. 41-58, 1975.
[9] Yomiuri online, May 26, 2011,
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/politics/news /20110522-OYT1T00444.htm [accessed July 31, 2012]
[10] A. Kamio, “Theory of information territory: Functional analysis of language,” Taishukan Shoten, 1990.
[11] S. Okamoto, “The effects of information relevance to speaker vs. hearer on the use of comment expressions and interrogative sentences in the Japanese language,” Japanese Journal of Psychology, Vol.66, pp. 379-384, 1995.
[12] S. Okamoto, “Rights of involvement and verbal expression: Amendment and expansion of “theory of information territory”,” Japanese Grammar, Vol.12, No.1, pp. 37-53, 2012.
[13] S. Okamoto, “The effects of message relevance to speaker vs. hearer on sentence-final expressions,” Japanese Journal of Psychology, Vol.64, pp. 255-262, 1993.
[14] S. Okamoto, “Involvement in information and end-of-sentence forms: Critical review of “theory of information territory” and proposition of a new model,” Psychological Review, Vol.39, pp. 168-204, 1996.
[15] NHK online, March 22, 2011,
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20110322/2254_k_kekkatoshite.html [accessed July 31, 2012]
[16] J. B. Bavelas, A. Black, N. Chovil, and J. Mullett, “Equivocal communication,” Newbury Park, Sage, 1990.
[17] Kansai Extended Association Announcement,
http://www.kouikikansai.jp/data_upload01/1338364003.pdf [accessed July 31, 2012]
[18] R. Beyth-Marom, “How probable is probable? Numerical translation of verbal probability expressions,” Journal of Forecasting, Vol.1, pp. 257-269, 1982.
[19] T. Gilovich, K. Savitsky, and V. H. Medvec, “The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of other’s ability to read one’s emotional status,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.75, pp. 332-346, 1998.
[20] S. Okamoto, “Social psychology of language” (4^th Ed.), Nakanishiya Publishing, 2010.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationa License.

[1] [1] National Research Council, “Improving risk communication,” Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1989.

[2] [2] H. H. Clark, “Using language,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.

[3] [3] S. C. Levinson, “Pragmatics,” Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983.

[4] [4] D. Sperber and D.Wilson, “Relevance: Communication and cognition,” (2^nd Ed.) (First Ed., 1986) Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1995.

[5] [5] H. H. Clark and C. R. Marshall, “Definite reference and mutual knowledge,” in A. K. Koshi, B. Webber, and I. A. Sag (Eds.), “Elements of discourse understanding,” pp. 10-63, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981.

[6] [6] S. C. Levinson, “Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature,” Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press, 2000.

[7] [7] S. Okamoto, “Communication and miscommunication,” in S. Okamoto (Ed.), “Miscommunication: Why it occurs, and how to prevent it,” Nakanishiya Publishing, pp. 3-24, 2011.

[8] [8] H. P. Grice, “Logic and conversation,” In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (Eds.), “Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts,” New York, Academic Press, pp. 41-58, 1975.

[9] [9] Yomiuri online, May 26, 2011,
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/politics/news /20110522-OYT1T00444.htm [accessed July 31, 2012]

[10] [10] A. Kamio, “Theory of information territory: Functional analysis of language,” Taishukan Shoten, 1990.

[11] [11] S. Okamoto, “The effects of information relevance to speaker vs. hearer on the use of comment expressions and interrogative sentences in the Japanese language,” Japanese Journal of Psychology, Vol.66, pp. 379-384, 1995.

[12] [12] S. Okamoto, “Rights of involvement and verbal expression: Amendment and expansion of “theory of information territory”,” Japanese Grammar, Vol.12, No.1, pp. 37-53, 2012.

[13] [13] S. Okamoto, “The effects of message relevance to speaker vs. hearer on sentence-final expressions,” Japanese Journal of Psychology, Vol.64, pp. 255-262, 1993.

[14] [14] S. Okamoto, “Involvement in information and end-of-sentence forms: Critical review of “theory of information territory” and proposition of a new model,” Psychological Review, Vol.39, pp. 168-204, 1996.

[15] [15] NHK online, March 22, 2011,
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20110322/2254_k_kekkatoshite.html [accessed July 31, 2012]

[16] [16] J. B. Bavelas, A. Black, N. Chovil, and J. Mullett, “Equivocal communication,” Newbury Park, Sage, 1990.

[17] [17] Kansai Extended Association Announcement,
http://www.kouikikansai.jp/data_upload01/1338364003.pdf [accessed July 31, 2012]

[18] [18] R. Beyth-Marom, “How probable is probable? Numerical translation of verbal probability expressions,” Journal of Forecasting, Vol.1, pp. 257-269, 1982.

[19] [19] T. Gilovich, K. Savitsky, and V. H. Medvec, “The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of other’s ability to read one’s emotional status,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.75, pp. 332-346, 1998.

[20] [20] S. Okamoto, “Social psychology of language” (4^th Ed.), Nakanishiya Publishing, 2010.

Verbal Expressions of Risk Communication: A Case Study After the 3.11 Crisis

Shinichiro Okamoto* and Toshiko Kikkawa**

Shinichiro Okamoto^* and Toshiko Kikkawa^**