Talk:Phatic expression

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BobLee4, Baileymichaelis, Ntijerina. Peer reviewers: Jmartinez4316, CA108017.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article title
Wow, an article with an adjective for a title that just might have the most appropriate title (although perhaps "phatic utterance" would be more in line with our standards). -- Jmabel 07:42, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There is an associated noun for phatic, which is phasis. (Source: Chambers Dictionary & Thesaurus 2005.) Perhaps we should use that for the article title and redirect phatic to it. 86.150.131.83 16:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge with the closely related Small talk (phatic communication) article?
I've only just read this article for the first time, prompted by the recent BBC news article on phatic language, and I experienced the rare (and unwelcome) situation of being slightly more confused after reading Wikipedia than I had been before doing so! In particular I think the ordering is unhelpful - the Jakobson citation, for instance, seems to define a specific, non-standard usage even before the standard meaning has been fully explored. Would it not be better to merge the whole with Small talk (phatic communication)?. Thanks. CharlesSpencer (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is very short on a large subject. It is however very confusing that parts of what obviously belongs in an article called Phatic expression now is written in an article about small talk. The fact that small talk is a kind of phatic communication is also true for light conversation, chat, natter, yak, chit-chat, shoot the breeze, gab and probably several other words. Small talk might be common in use but the term reffered to is phatic and is what you find in for instance: http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=phatic. I would personally not trust information found in an article named Small talk unless the article was concerning itself with the actual meaning of the expression, which is a lot of words that does not really contain much meaning. I do not expect to find sociology or philosophy about why people interact in such a way under the heading small talk. I do however realize that phatic is a difficult term to describe, but isn't using the expression small talk an easy way out of a difficult problem. Phatic confuses me and the article about small talk did not help as it does not describe in any adequate way the theories, philosophies or research. Best regards.  Stallo (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion should be closed, I feel. "Phatic" is preferable to "phasis" because it's more common in English usage. "Small talk" does not mean the same thing as "phatic expression." It's better to use the more precise term to identify this class of linguistic phenomenon.MikeGodwin (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This usage
"In the modern context, this usage appears in online communities and more specifically on micro-blogging" < what usage? The reference isn't clear. Slac speak up! 09:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Along with my group members, Bailee and Bailey, I have the article of phatic expressions and the way that I plan on making contributions to the wiki page is going to be by checking citations and seeing if I can have better resources for the article as well as making sure there isn't any bias within the writings of others on the wiki page. Making sure that if there's anymore information that I can find in the resources that I can use and able to contribute more useful information for the general public to understand phatic expressions better. 19:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)