Empirical research on the effects of such approaches is still to be conducted, but it seems to hold promise for an understanding of some of the challenges facing language users when being asked to explore the friendly-to-unfriendly communication continuum, through the use of contrastive metaphors, as illustrated in this chapter. Gomes de Matos’s book on communicative peace (2002a) was reviewed in English by Rector (2003). According to the University of North Carolina linguist, “the book is a new step in the development of linguistic theory” and “it constitutes an interdisciplinary work, intertwining philosophy, psychology, and social sciences.” The reviewer adds that Gomes de Matos “suggests a method for achieving a positive and humane communication for peace” and “teaches how to be positive and avoid being offensive or destructive.”
A brief appraisal in English of the constructive communication approach can be found in a linguistic introduction to Portuguese by Berkeley linguist Azevedo (2005, p. 290): “Research on negative language . . . has led some scholars to make a case for intentional use of positive language as a strategy to improve communication, and ultimately, one would hope, human relations (Gomes de Matos, 1996, 2002b). Whether such efforts can be effective as a tool for social change is an open empirical question.”
IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION FOR PEACEFUL LANGUAGE USE
In educating for human rights and responsibilities, one of the still little-explored dimensions in applied peace linguistics has to do with communicative peace, that is, the right to communicative peace, that is, the right every person should have to learn to communicate peacefully for the good of humankind. In such spirit, a plea of mine was the subject of a message by the president of the International Communication Association (Craig, 2003), in which my formulation is described as an in-depth integration of three fundamental human rights: the right to live in peace, the right to learn, and the right to communicate.
My updated version of that interpretation, with the addition of the notion of conflict resolution, is that human beings should have the right and the responsibility to learn to communicate peacefully in varied societal contexts, especially in challenging, life-threatening situations. The right to communicate constructively is much neglected in schools and other forms of education. This neglect is detrimental to social life and is in need of change. In such spirit, let’s make the humanizing force of language a frequent rather than an occasional feature of communicative use. Accordingly, I make a plea here for organizations committed to helping persons, groups, communities, and nations (re)solve conflicts and disputes to invest more in interdisciplinary research aimed at integrating knowledge about peaceful uses of languages into programs such as Columbia University’s Peace Education Program, which sustains an International Institute of Peace, founded in 1982 by peace educator Betty Reardon (Jenkins, 2005). An emphasis on peaceful communication in such initiatives would reflect the assumption of the need for transformative communicative change leading to the preparation of citizens as peaceful users of languages, a systematic practice conspicuously absent from school curricula in Brazil, for instance, and presumably in most other countries.
To provide a concise view of some implications of the approaches dealt with in the preceding section, I turn to my THRIL (threefold repetition of the initial letter) technique, inspired by the long-cherished literary tradition of alliteration, still underexplored in communicatively vital contexts such as conflict resolution.
What follows are four sets of alliteration through which key concepts and insights from each approach are presented. Readers are urged to apply their alliterative talents to their readings in the CR field; it may prove both entertaining and provocative. By creating such alliteration, you make dual use of your meaning-making marvel—your mind: (1) you try as best you can to accurately translate some of the philosophy underlying each approach and (2) you challenge your ability to be concise, thus enhancing memorability. To illustrate how such a practice of making meaningful, memorable messages can be used effectively in political science contexts, here is a set created for a lecture given to students of international relations at a college, Faculdade Integrada do Recife. Only some letters have been selected for inclusion:
AAA—Aim at affinity and alliance.
BBB—Build bridges between nations.
CCC—Consider conflicts constructively.
DDD—Dignify your diplomatic discourse.
GGG—Generate gentleness and generosity.
HHH—Harvest humanity and humaneness.
III—Inspire for integration and interdependence.
LLL—Let liberty be the light.
MMM—Maximize mediation and meditation.
NNN—Nurture national negotiating styles.
PPP—Perceive persons as peace partners.
RRR—Recommend realistic reconciliation.
SSS—Support and sustain human solidarity.
TTT—Treat others with tact and tolerance.
VVV—Veto all varieties of violence.
WWW—Weigh your words wisely.
Nonviolent Communication
EEE—Express yourself empathically rather than evaluatively.
CCC—Communicate by connecting compassionately.
VVV—Value a vital vocabulary for feelings.
Appreciative Inquiry
AAA—Act amiably and appreciatively.
CCC—Communicate for cooperation and change.
FFF—Foster faith and freedom.
Powerful Nondefensive Communication
CCC—Communicate constructively with compassion.
RRR—Relate through reciprocity and respect.
PPP—Promote peaceful power.
Constructive Communication
CCC—Communicate through cordial, caring language.
LLL—Love your linguistic neighbors in all lands.
MMM—Monitor your manipulative messages.
As a creative practice, alliteration has much to offer inquiring minds in all domains of human knowledge, especially those that call for language-peace-and-conflict awareness, a much needed trio in today’s increasingly turbulent world. In closing, may communicative peace be with you, so that in your language-based conflicts and disputes, you act as true humanizers, humanists who are imbued with the ideals of human rights, justice, peace, and dignity and who, with a keen sense of global social responsibility, apply such values for the improvement of the human communicative condition everywhere.
LANGUAGE IN PEACE-BUILDING TEACHER EDUCATION
The focus of this chapter has been the interaction of three core concepts: language, peace, and conflict resolution. How about their integration in materials aimed at the preparation of educators as communicative peace builders from a conflict-management-resolution perspective? As an inspiring example of that, a description will be made of a recent publication, sponsored by the US Institute of Peace: Peacebuilding Toolkit for Educators: High School Lessons (Milofsky, 2011). The book is the outcome of a collective effort: the editor plus seven contributors with expertise and experience in a variety of fields, among them teacher education, international education, curricula development, conflict resolution, teaching of ethics, and public policy. As a peace linguist, I was attracted by the book’s practical treatment of conflict and language. In two of its three sections are four lessons focused on conflict (definition, identification of conflict elements, identification of conflict style, conflict mediation), one lesson on nonverbal communication (the authors remind us that “about 80 percent of our communication is nonverbal,” p. 57), and one lesson on active listening, in which seven techniques are presented according to a tripartite framework of purpose, method, and example.
The example component consists of phraseologies used for such purposes as encouraging, restating, clarifying, empathizing, summarizing, and reframing. Given the relevance of phraseologies in human linguistic interaction, the illustrative phraseologies found in the handout for active listening techniques may not only draw readers’ attention but challenge th
em to contribute to the promising area of cross-linguistic phraseological studies: the comparison of set phrases (e.g., on apologies, agreement, conciliation, dignity, empathy, persuasion, problem solving). Two examples of listening actively (humanizingly, peacefully) are, “I can understand how you would perceive that as a threat” (p. 68), and, “Let’s see how we can work together to address your concern” (p. 69). One of the bits of communicative advice given is worth quoting: “In redirecting negative or adversarial statements, use neutral or positive rather than accusatory language” (p. 69). Although addressed to educators in a US context, this tool kit can be adapted to other contexts sharing the authors’ conviction that students should be encouraged “to think critically about the world around them and their place in it” (p. 7).
The Rise of Nonkilling Linguistics
A recent initiative of the Honolulu-based Center for Global Nonkilling should be brought to the attention of readers of this third edition: the launching of the volume Nonkilling Linguistics: Practical Applications (Friedrich, 2012). It includes the pioneering chapter, “Nonkilling Linguistics,” coauthored by Patricia Friedrich and Francisco Gomes de Matos, originally published in Toward a Nonkilling Paradigm (Pim, 2009). The volume contains an interview with Gomes de Matos, in which suggestions are made for applications of nonkilling linguistics. This emerging branch of linguistics aims at using principles of linguistics to help language users avoid and prevent acts of communicative violence and killing. Recognition of the relevance of nonkilling linguistics can be found in Deutsch (2010). In his poster-review, Deutsch states, “Gomes de Matos’ poems are a contribution to the world.” Given the relationship between peace linguistics and nonkilling linguistics, developments in both initiatives should prove inspiring to practitioners of conflict resolution.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, I have offered to readers a sense of the theoretical and applied dimensions related to the emerging area of applied peace linguistics. I have summarized the key concepts of language, peace, and conflict resolution and have described their interrelationship through a synthesis of implications from four communication-based approaches to conflict resolution, three of them from the United States and one from Brazil. Finally, I have provided examples of applications of communicative peace and have called for a new type of communicative right and responsibility to be considered in the education of peaceful language users:
In such spirit what do peace linguists recommend?
Language, Peace, and Conflict Resolution
Let’s constructively blend.
References
Atkinson, M., and others. Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Azevedo, Milton M. Portuguese: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Bolinger, D. Language, the Loaded Weapon: The Use and Abuse of Language Today. New York: Longman, 1980.
Cox, E., and Dannahy, P. “The Value of Openness in E-Relationships: Using Nonviolent Communication to Guide Online Coaching and Mentoring.” International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 2005, 3(1), 39–51.
Craig, R. T. “The Fundamental Communicative Right: A Brazilian Scholar’s Plea.” ICA Newsletter, 2003, 31(6), 2, 5.
Crystal, D. The Penguin Dictionary of Language. (2nd ed.) London: Penguin Books, 1999.
Crystal, D., and Crystal, H. Words on Words: Quotations about Language and Languages. London: Penguin Books, 2000.
De Saussure, F. “Course in General Linguistics.” (W. Baskin, trans.) In D. Crystal and H. Crystal, Words and Words: Quotations about Language and Languages. London: Penguin Books, 2000, p. 7. (Original work published 1916.)
Deutsch, M. “A Review of F. Gomes de Matos’ Nurturing Nonkilling: A Poetic Plantation.” Poster at Associação Brasil América, Recife, Brazil, 2010. www.nonkilling.org/node/16
Downes, W. Language in Society. (2nd ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Duff, P. A. “Research Approaches in Applied Linguistics.” In R. B. Kaplan (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Ellison, S. Taking the War out of Our Words: The Art of Powerful Non-Defensive Communication. Berkeley, CA: Bay Tree, 2002.
Friedrich, P. (ed.). Nonkilling Linguistics: Practical Applications. Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling, 2012.
Gomes de Matos, F. Lingüística Aplicada ao Ensino de Inglês. São Paulo, Brazil: McGraw-Hill, 1973.
Gomes de Matos, F. “Probing the Communicative Paradigm: A Concept for Sociolinguistics.” Sociolinguistics Newsletter, July 1993.
Gomes de Matos, F. “A Thesis 20 Years On: The Theory-Praxis of the Rights of Language Learners.” In L. Barbara and M. Scott (eds.), Reflections on Language Learning: In Honour of Antonieta Celani. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 1994.
Gomes de Matos, F. Pedagogia da Positividade: Comunicação construtiva em Português. Recife, Brazil: Editora da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, 1996.
Gomes de Matos, F. “Humanizing and Harmonizing Political Discourse: The Contribution of Peace Linguistics.” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 2000, 6(4), 339–344.
Gomes de Matos, F. “Applying the Pedagogy of Positiveness to Diplomatic Communication.” In M. Kurbalija and H. Slavik (eds.), Language and Diplomacy. Msida: University of Malta, Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies, 2001.
Gomes de Matos, F. Comunicar para o bem: Rumo à paz comunicativa. São Paulo, Brazil: Editora Ave Maria, 2002a.
Gomes de Matos, F. “Teaching Vocabulary for Peace Education.” ESL Magazine, 2002b, 5(4), 22–25.
Gomes de Matos, F. “On Communicative Peace: Origins, Goals, and Applications.” Journal of Peace Education, 2005a, 2(2), 210–211.
Gomes de Matos, F. “Using Peaceful Language: From Principles to Practices.” In UNESCO-OELSS Online Encyclopedia, 2005b. www.eolss.com
Gomes de Matos, F. “LIF PLUS: The Life-Improving Force of Peaceful Language Use.” In Peter Coleman and Morton Deutsch (eds.), Psychological Components of Sustainable Peace. New York: Springer, 2012.
Grabe, W. “Applied Linguistics: An Emerging Discipline for the Twenty-First Century.” In R. B. Kaplan (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Jenkins, T. “The International Institute on Peace Education: Learning for Transformative and Structural Change.” Journal of Peace Education, 2005, 2(2), 209.
Leu, L. Nonviolent Communication: Companion Workbook. Encinitas, CA: Puddle Dancer Press, 2003.
Milofsky, Alison (ed.). Peacebuilding Toolkit for Educators: High School Lessons. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press, 2011.
Pim, Joám Evans (ed.). Towards a Nonkilling Paradigm. Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling, 2009.
Random House Webster’s College Dictionary. New York: Random House, 1997.
Reardon, B. Educating for a Culture of Peace in a Gender Perspective. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 2001.
Rector, M. “Review of F. Gomes de Matos’ Comunicar para o bem: Rumo à Paz Comunicativa.” Hispania, 2003, 86(3), 529–531.
Ríos, M. O., and Fisher, S. D. “Appreciative Inquiry as a Tool for Conflict Resolution.” In C. Sampson and others (eds.), Positive Approaches to Peacebuilding: A Resource for Innovators. Washington, DC: Pact Publications, 2003.
Rosenberg, M. B. Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. (2nd ed.) Encinitas, CA: Puddle Dancer Press, 2003.
Sampson, C., Abu-Nimer, M., Liebler, C., and Whitney, D. (eds.). Positive Approaches to Peacebuilding: A Resource for Innovators. Washington, DC: Pact Publications, 2003.
Sapir, E. “Language.” In D. Crystal and H. Crystal, Words on Words: Quotations about Language and Languages. London: Penguin Books, 2000. (Original work published 1921.)
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., and Hamilton, H. E. (eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
Sharp, G. Sharp’s Dictionary of Power and Strug
gle: Language of Civil Resistance in Conflicts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Szepe, G., and Horanyi, O. “Peace and Communication.” In D. Cunningham and M. Candelier (eds.), Linguapax V. Melbourne, Australia: FIPLV-World Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations and AMLTA–Australian Modern Language Teachers Association, 1995.
Van Dijk, T. A. (ed.). Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Discourse Analysis in Society. Vol. 4. London: Academic Press, 1985.
Whitney, D., and Trosten-Bloom, A. The Power of Appreciative Inquiry: A Practical Guide to Positive Change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2003.
Yarn, D. Dictionary of Conflict Resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.
APPENDIX: ON LANGUAGES
A Poem-Plea by Francisco Gomes de Matos
What is a language? A mental marvel
Used for all kinds of meaning making
But how can we integrate languages
Into the blessed ways of peace making?
By avoiding forms of verbal abuse
Preventing aggressive acts of discourse
So that our communicative intentions
Can be free from a collision course
Being communicatively empathic and friendly
In speaking, listening, reading, writing, or signing
By interacting with persons, groups, communities
In language that is linguistically dignifying
For languages to shine everywhere
And deeply touch the human soul
Let’s promote peaceful language
And make it a permanent goal
Ensuring for everyone the right to learn
Is a universal human rights priority
Learning to communicate peacefully
Should also be a vital necessity
Language uses can be loaded
It’s like a weapon, some would say
Instead, let’s give it PeacePower
The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed) Page 33