2.2　Power Distribution

Scholars distinguish between the concepts of “power to”and“power over.”“Power to”refers to power to achieve intended effects (Russell, 1938).“Power over”is the relational facet of power (Ng & Bradac, 1993).According to Ng and Bradac, the two may not be always positively correlated.Sometimes, a person with relational power over another may not be able to execute his/her power.What’s more, a person with no relational power over another may be able to make the other person cooperate to produce intended effect (1993).French and Raven (1959)identified five bases of power, i.e.the relationship between the powerful and the powerless: (1) reward power; (2) coercive power;(3) legitimate power; (4) referent power; and (5) expert power.Reward power is based on the perception of the powerless that the powerful has the ability to reward.Coercive power is based on the expectation of punishment if the powerless fail to conform to the powerful.Legitimate power is based on the perception by the powerless that the powerful has a legitimate right to prescribe behavior for him.Referent power is based on the powerless’s identification with the powerful.Expert power is based on the perception that the powerful have expertise on the matter concerned.According to Fraser (2003), American mediators possess the positional power (i.e.legitimate power) to implement the mediation procedure and to regulate the mediation discipline.They can also adopt expert power to exert influence on the mediation process to some extent so that to facilitate the process of reaching an agreement.

Power is often reflected in languages in various contexts.Aristotle (1909) said that logic and facts are not enough to persuade people.Only when they are combined with language and language style, can persuasion be achieved.Therefore, the role of power in language use is important.Many scholars have concerned themselves with issues of power and persuasion.Among their concerns is when a persuader’s relational powers fail to have the intended effect.Another issue that scholars have been interested in is the features of powerful, persuasive language.There are features of language that can contribute to powerful speech, as well as a number of features that decrease the power of language.According to O’Barr (1982), low-power forms include hedges,intensifiers, tag questions or declaratives with rising intonation,hesitations, deictic phrases and polite forms.While, high-power speech avoids these language forms.Genre changes and a person’s psychological change may lead to the switch between high and low power speeches.Usually a person’s social role in a given situation will determine what power level and style he/she will adopt.The effect of power among listeners does not make significant difference when it comes to persuasion according to the study carried out by Petty and Cacioppo (1986).However, Carli (1990)’s study shows that power style maybe used to evaluate the soundness of the communicator’s position when the listeners may have no adequate knowledge or ability to evaluate the substantive claims.Other language variables that contribute to powerful or powerless speech include social and economic status (Haslett,1990), lexical diversity (Howeler, 1972), speech rate (Brown,1980), and language intensity (Bowers, 1963).(https://www.daowen.com)

Fraser (2003) defines power in mediation as “the capacity of one party to produce an intended effect on another”(p.25).There are two types of power: “that possessed by the parties relative to each other and that possessed by the mediator relative to the parties”(p.25).He states, “for potential power to be effective,the other party must be aware of it: a party must make their power manifest and show that they are ready to exercise it”(p.25).This assertion of power in mediation can occur, according to Fraser in three ways: personal power, positional power and potential power.Fraser stated that the mediator’s power is given to them by the parties and it is only effective during the period of time of mediation.However, in China, mediators are treated as“quasi-arm of the law”(Wall & Blum, 1991, p.18), so they are actively involved in conflict resolution.Their power is given by the state and does not necessarily come from the parties.This power could go beyond what one party or both parties want it to be, because the mediator feels that his/her responsibility is to ensure the stability of the society and to maintain harmonious relationship among the people.Therefore, his or her power may extend beyond the confines of the mediation event, but into daily life as well.